Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
LINDA MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1643 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SANIL JOSE, SRI.P.G.SUDHEESH, SRI.BONNY BENNY, SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU, SHRI.AMALJITH
For the Respondents: SMT.O.M.SHALINA, SRI.JAISHANKAR V. NAIR
The court highlights procedural fairness, balancing the petitioner's rights to travel with the necessity of compliance with legal obligations.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus urging the court to direct the respondents to conduct a personal hearing regarding representations for the recall of a Look Out Circular (LOC). The court acknowledges the procedural constraints on disposal and allows the petitioner to travel abroad subject to compliance with document requirements. The respondents are mandated to resolve the representations within four months from the production of this judgment's certified copy. (Paragraphs 1-6) The main issues include the proper hearing timeframe and document submission conditions. The court emphasizes the necessity of timely action by the respondents in line with procedural justice. The final order permits the petitioner to travel while ensuring compliance with legal obligations. (Paragraphs 6-7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks justice through writs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the necessity of production of documents is emphasized. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. responses to representations must be timely. (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner's travel rights are acknowledged under conditions. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-
“(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to conduct personal hearing on Exts.P10 and P13 representations preferred by the petitioner and to conduct the hearing at their Ernakulam Office, to secure ends of justice;
(ii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and (iii) dispense with the production of English translation of documents in vernacular language which are produced as documents in the above Writ Petition.”
2. The petitioner and her family are residing in Dubai for employment purposes. A PMLA proceeding bearing file No.ECIR/54/DLZO-II/2021 has been registered against the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 issued summons to the petitioner requiring her appearance before the competent authority. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 4 on 09.11.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Exts.P10 and P13 representations before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking recall of the LOC. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not finally disposed of Exts.P10 and P13 representations.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that Exts. P10 and P13 could be disposed of only after the production of the required documents by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not produced the required documents. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no objection to the petitioner leaving India for business purposes subject to the condition that she shall appear before the competent authority as and when required.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will produce the documents required by the competent authority as early as possible.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to dispose of Exts.P10 and P13 within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner can travel abroad.
7. The operation of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the competent authority as and when required.
