Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(11) The petitioner contends that even copy of the LOC was not provided to her and she was compelled to come back from the Airport. (12) Admittedly, the said LOC dt. 28.12.2021 (R2/1) is said to have been issued at the instance of the respondent No.2. (13) The petitioner had applied for a Postgraduate MBA Program being offered by prestigious Boston University Questrom School of Business, Massachusetts, USA. She was successful in getting a seat to study the said MBA Programme in the said University and was also awarded a 90% scholarship for the said study by the said University as can be seen from Annexure P7 email. The said program would start from August, 2022 and would go on for 24 months.

(17) Petitioner contends that before respondent No.2 requested for issuance of LOC against her and others, it should have at least informed the petitioner and respondent no.5 of the same and that the action of the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 in not furnishing even a copy of the said LOC to her was illegal and arbitrary.

(18) The petitioner contends that the scholarship secured by her was for study in a prestigious institution and was once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; that she is one among 130 students selected from 34 countries for the MBA study program and is only 2nd person from India to 4 of 20 have been offered 90% scholarship; that the respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to hold her entire future to ransom and deprive her of her right to travel abroad and pursue her education ; and her academic career would be ruined on account of the wrong action of the respondent No.2. (19) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1 and contended that a citizen of the country had a constitutional right to go abroad and impairment of such a right cannot be done without observing the principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. AB.K. Ltd2, to contend that an un-communicated order, such as the impugned LOC, has no legal effect and would take legal effect only when the same is communicated to the affected party. (20) Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is not an 'accused' in any criminal case evading the process of law since no criminal case has been registered against her and there is no declaration issued either that she committed any fraud or that she was a willful defaulter by any competent authority as per the law and therefore, the LOC itself ought not have been issued. Reliance is placed on Madras High Court judgment in S.Martin vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch Egmore, Chennai & Ors3. (21) It is contended that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right as held in Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India & (1978) 1 SCC 248 (2015) 10 SCC 369 (2014) SCC Online Mad 1651. 





                              18 of 20

 115-CWP-5492-2022                                                          - 19 -



(77)           The stand taken by respondent No.2 in its counter-affidavit

that a foreign education is a luxury than a necessity and that the petitioner ought to have pursued her higher studies in India only and not abroad, in our opinion, is in poor taste and is perverse. It ought to be a matter of pride that an Indian citizen has secured an MBA seat in a prestigious US University and also a 90% scholarship for study of the MBA course. The bright future of the petitioner cannot be jeopardized in this manner by the respondents.