Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Since the arguments advanced by the parties in all the writ petitions are identical, the matters are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioners have challenged a Lookout Circular (LoC) dated February 29, 2020 issued by the Immigration Authorities at the behest of the Punjab National Bank (respondent no.2) in the present writ petition(s).

3. Under the heading "REASON FOR OPENING OF LOC" in Clause IV, it was stated that the LoC was being issued as an exceptional case as it appeared to the concerned authority (MD & CEO of respondent no.2), on the inputs received, that departure of the petitioner would be detrimental to the economic interest of India and larger public interest. The inputs, which were the alleged basis of such opinion, were not disclosed in the LoC itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that merely parroting the provisions of the statute or the Office Memorandum (OM) dated October 27, 2010, as amended on December 5, 2017, does not amount to giving reasons. As such, it is contended that the LoC, being in contravention of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, ought to be set aside inter alia on the ground that the same was devoid of reason.

42. In the cases at hand, the disclosed reason for issuance of LoC is insufficient and, in any event, does not tally with the allegations made against the petitioner.

43. Apart from the LoC being devoid of any such reason sufficient to bring the petitioners within the purview of the Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 (as amended), an exceptional case had to be made out against the petitioners, which has not been done in the present instance.

44. The premise of issuance of the LoC could at best be the prior request of the CBI, which option is negated in view of the CBI having returned the first complaint dated August 8, 2019 made by the Bank subsequently on December 28, 2020 and the impugned LoC being issued on February 29, 2020. In any event, no such complaint was disclosed in the LoC at all.

62. As revealed by the LoC and even the affidavits-in-opposition of the respondent no.2, no cogent reason has been shown for the request of the LoC. Even the respondent-authorities acted in an unlawful manner in blindly issuing the LoC without even ascertaining whether the request by the respondent no.2 revealed any exceptional case as envisaged in the amended Office Memorandum No.25016/31/2010- Imm dated October 27, 2010. It is incumbent upon the issuing authority of the LoC to ascertain at least whether the grounds disclosed in the LoC and/or the request for LoC fall within the four corners of the exceptional cases as defined in the Office Memorandum. Although it would be going too far to extend such logic to the extent that the authorities issuing the LoC shall ascertain the merits/demerits of the allegations made in the request, at least ingredients justifying the issuance of LoC has to be looked into prima facie by the issuing authority.

65. In view of the aforesaid observations, the LoC dated February 29, 2020 issued against the petitioner was unlawful and de hors the relevant provisions and the Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 (as amended). Thus, the LoC cannot stand judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

66. Hence, W.P.A. No.10241 of 2020, W.P.A. No. 10247 of 2020 and W.P.A. No. 10249 of 2020 are allowed and all the connected applications are hereby disposed of, thereby setting aside the LoC dated February 29, 2020 issued in respect of the petitioners in all the writ petitions by the Immigration Authorities on the request of the respondent no.2-Bank. The crux of this order shall be circulated internally by respondent no.1 among the original recipients of the intimation regarding LoC from the said respondent, including concerned airport authorities, at the earliest, to ensure that the petitioner is not detained or harassed unnecessarily on the basis of the said LoC any further.