Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsigned agreement draft in Apurve Goel vs Bureau Of Immigration & Anr. on 19 September, 2023Matching Fragments
23. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Chaudhary vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del has observed as under:
"37. However, the matter does not end here and the crucial issue which needs to be now determined is as to whether the clause "detrimental to the economic interests of India" introduced vide the amendment in 2017, with a specific rider that the same would be used only in exceptional circumstances, could have, in the facts of the present case, been resorted to, for issuing the impugned LOC, as also whether the impugned LOC could be continued for the last almost 3 years without any proceedings under the IPC or any other penal law being initiated against the petitioner. It has to be kept in mind, that the issuance of a LOC necessarily curtails the rights of an individual to travel abroad and therefore, I am of the view, that for invocation of this clause, which, in any event, is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances, a mandatory pre-condition would be a formation of a reasonable belief by the originating authority that the departure of an individual would be "detrimental to the economic interests of India" to such an extent that it warrants curtailment of an individual's fundamental right to travel abroad. Turning to the facts of the present case, what is emerging is that the entire case of the respondents to believe that the petitioner's departure from the country will be "detrimental to the economic interests of India", hinges on an unsigned draft agreement and some WhatsApp chats, which it is the respondent's own case are not conclusive. The respondents, are therefore, awaiting a response to their FT & TR references to the authorities at Dubai, United Arab Emirates to proceed against the petitioner under the Black Money Act, 2015, Income Tax Act, 1969, and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, which were, in fact, the reasons provided by Respondent 3 itself to Respondent 1, while forwarding its request for issuance of the LOC.