The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, which cannot be curtailed by executive action without statutory authority.

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That the impugned Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner by the Respondents No.1 & 2 at the instance of respondent No.3 bank may kindly be quashed and/or, (ii) The Respondents be directed to not to obstruct the travel of the Petitioner;

(iii) To allow the cost of this petition with any other appropriate relief(s) may kindly be granted to the petitioner and, (iv) To pass any other or further orders) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the matter."

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in W.P.

No.719 of 2020 (Viraj Chetan Shah V. Union of India Through the Ministry of Home Affairs and Another) and other connected writ petitions reported in 1 WP-29569-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31470 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195. Attention has been drawn of this Court to paragraph Nos. 194 to 196 in which it has been held as under:

“L. CONCLUSIONS 194. For these reasons, we believe the Petitions will succeed in part. We return to the questions we had formulated at the beginning, with our answers against each.

Q No. Question Finding I. Can the right to travel abroad, part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, be curtailed by an executive action absent any governing statute or controlling statutory provision?

No II. Is the entire field of controlling entry and exit from India's borders already fully occupied by a statute, viz., the Passports Act, 1967 and, if so, can the OMs authorise the issuance of such LOCs de hors the Passports Act?

The field is not fully occupied by the Passports Act. The OMs may validly authorise the issuance of LOCs in cases other than the ones under consideration in the cases before us (for instance, at the request of another agency or following an order of a Court).

III. Are the OMs per se arbitrary and unconstitutional as ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

No IV. Is the inclusion of Chairman/Managing Directors/CEOS of all public sector banks in Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 22 nd February 2021 OM, effected by the previous amendment, bad in law and liable to be struck down on the ground of (a) arbitrariness; (b) unreasonableness; (c) improper and invalid classification; or (d) conferment/delegation of uncanalised and excessive power?

On all these grounds and others as analysed above, YES V.

Is Clause 6(L) of the 22 nd February 2021 OM to the extent it is applied to PSBs ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as also arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate inter alia because the financial interests of a particular bank or even a group of banks or all public sector banks together cannot reasonably, rationally or logically be equated with or be placed on the same level as the ‘economic interests of India’?

Is not required to be decided.

VI.

Is Clause 6(J) of the 22 nd February 2021 OM liable to be quashed in its entirety as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as also per se and manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate because it allows LOCs to continue until cancelled No 2 WP-29569-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31470 instead of providing a fixed term for them?

VII. Are the impugned LOCs— (i) ultra vires the OMs; Does not arise (ii) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (including for infringing a fundamental right except according to a procedure established by law; and a failure to abide by mandated minimum procedural norms; unreasonableness; arbitrariness; want of proportionality), and Yes (iii) Arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate in equating the financial interest of a public sector bank with the “the economic interests of India”.

Does not require to be decided.

195. Consequently:

(a) Clause 8(b)(xv)