Delhi High Court quashes Look Out Circular against petitioner citing lack of merit and violation of fundamental travel rights

Delhi HC allowed writ petition challenging Look Out Circular (LOC) against petitioner. Court held LOC issuance was excessive and without merit as petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender nor evading Indian court proceedings. Petitioner and company were already adjudged bankrupt by Hong Kong HC, with creditors appointing trustees. Respondent bank had participated in Hong Kong winding up proceedings which reached logical conclusion. Court emphasized LOC significantly impedes travel abroad, which is fundamental right under Article 21. No exceptional circumstances affecting India's economic interests existed to justify LOC against Indian citizen.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner.
2. Applicability of Indian law to the petitioner's case.
3. Right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Legality of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of an LOC by Punjab National Bank (PNB) through the Foreign Regional Registration Office, Bureau of Immigration, arguing that it was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner contended that he had not committed any offense under Indian law and was not evading any court proceedings in India. The court noted that the LOC was issued despite the petitioner being adjudged bankrupt by the High Court of Hong Kong and his subsequent discharge from bankruptcy. The court concluded that the issuance of the LOC was excessive and without merit, as all proceedings against the petitioner were conducted in Hong Kong and had reached their logical conclusion.

2. Applicability of Indian law to the petitioner's case:
The respondents argued that despite the loan being taken from PNB's Hong Kong branch, the profits and losses were routed to India, and thus Indian law was applicable. They contended that the petitioner's departure could impact public funds and the country's economy. The court rejected this argument, stating that the default in Hong Kong did not constitute an exceptional circumstance affecting India's economic interest. The court emphasized that the purpose of an LOC is to ensure the presence of a person for investigation or court proceedings, which was not relevant in this case as the petitioner had no criminal case in India.

3. Right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right under Article 21 and cannot be deprived without due process of law. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that any restriction on this right must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the LOC issued against the petitioner did not meet these standards and was therefore unreasonable and perverse.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the LOC, affirming the petitioner's right to travel abroad. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

---