Court Strikes Down Arbitrary LOC, Grants Travel Relief to Petitioner

The court deemed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal, violating constitutional Articles 14 and 21. The respondents were instructed to enable the petitioner to travel to Australia until August 2022 to be with her daughter. The court set aside the LOC and granted relief, allowing the petitioner to travel abroad without any costs incurred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner's right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Procedural fairness and principles of natural justice in issuing the LOC.
4. Respondent No.2 Bank's justification for the LOC based on loan default.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Look Out Circular (LOC) Issued Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the LOC issued by the Bureau of Immigration at the instance of the Bank of India. The court noted that the LOC was issued without informing the petitioner or providing her with a copy, which is against the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the LOC must be communicated to the affected party to have any legal effect, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal vs. A.B.K. Ltd.

2. Petitioner's Right to Travel Abroad Under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as established in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India. The petitioner's fundamental right to travel cannot be infringed without a fair, reasonable, and just procedure. The court found that the respondents did not follow such a procedure in issuing the LOC against the petitioner.

3. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural Justice in Issuing the LOC:
The court held that the respondents failed to follow fair, just, and reasonable procedures by not providing the petitioner with a copy of the LOC or the reasons for its issuance. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi, emphasizing that any procedure depriving a person of their right to travel must be non-arbitrary and reasonable. The court found that the respondents' actions violated these principles.

4. Respondent No.2 Bank's Justification for the LOC Based on Loan Default:
The court scrutinized the Bank's justification for requesting the LOC, which was based on the petitioner's role as a guarantor for a loan defaulted by respondent No.5. The court noted that the petitioner was not an accused in any criminal case, and there was no declaration of her being a willful defaulter. The court highlighted that mere suspicion or the quantum of loan default cannot justify restricting personal liberty through an LOC. The court found that the Bank's apprehension of the petitioner fleeing the country was not sufficient to warrant such a coercive measure.

Conclusion:
The court declared the LOC issued against the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to travel to Australia to be with her daughter until the end of August 2022.

Relief Granted:
1. The LOC issued against the petitioner was set aside.
2. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to travel abroad.

The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

---