Vikas Aggarwal Vs Union of India (Punjab Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that as there is no adverse effect on the economic interest of India, recourse couldn’t be taken for coercive process like issuance of Look Out Circular (LOC) interfering with the constitutional right to travel abroad.
Facts-
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the Look Out Circulars [LOC] issued and extended by respondent No.2 (Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi) at the behest of respondents No.3 to 6 & 8 preventing them for travelling abroad.
Conclusion-
Held that in the instant case we are satisfied that no exceptional case or any adverse effect on the economic interests of India has been made out by the said Banks. So recourse could not have been taken for a coercive process like issuance of LOC interfering with the right to travel abroad.
The right to travel abroad has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Maneka Gandhi and Satish Chandra Verma Union of India, as falling within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Since the right to travel abroad flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a very high threshold is mandated by the Office Memorandums themselves to deny such a right to an Indian citizen. Such a threshold is not met in the instant case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
In this Writ Petition the petitioners have challenged the Look Out Circulars [LOC] issued and extended by respondent No.2 at the behest of respondents No.3 to 6 & 8 preventing them for travelling abroad.
Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition is the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India; respondent No.2 is the Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi; respondent No.3 is the Bank of Baroda, Corporate Financial Services (Large Corporate) Branch, New Delhi; Respondent No.4 is Bank of Baroda, Deira Branch, Dubai, UAE; respondent No.5 is Additional Director, National Central Bureau (NCB) (Interpol), India; respondent No.6 is Additional Director (Investigation), Serious Frauds Investigation Office, New Delhi; respondent No. 7 is the Managing Director and CEO, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai; and respondent No.8 is the Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Center, Mumbai ( for short’ SBI’).
It is not in dispute that both petitioners are Directors of the company by name M/s Asian Ispat FZ LLC ( AIF) based in UAE and the said company had borrowed loan from the Bank of Baroda, Deira Branch, Dubai and the SBI, Dubai, UAE. The petitioners had stood as guarantors for the said loan.
Both of them are also Directors of company by name M/s AGR Steel Strips (P) Ltd., India ( for short ‘AGR’) and M/s Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited, India (for short ‘ACCIL’).
As against the petitioner No.1, the LOCs had been issued as under: –
