Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner should be stayed pending further hearing.
Analysis: The petitioner confined the challenge to the Look Out Circular and not to the show cause notices. The material before the Court indicated that the investigating agency already knew the petitioner's residential and official addresses, and there was no denial of the assertion that no summons had been served. The Court also noted the absence of any allegation that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation. Further, under paragraph 8(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, a Look Out Circular remains valid for one year from the date of issue and the subject's name is automatically removed thereafter unless renewed. Since the circular had been issued on 08.07.2019 and no renewal was shown, the Court found prima facie support for automatic removal. The Court also took note of the petitioner's medical condition and the incomplete stage of adjudication.
Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to interim protection, and the operation, execution and implementation of the Look Out Circular was stayed till the next date of hearing.