Om Prakash Bhatt vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6244 Bom

                                                                   111.21 wp-Final.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2021

      Om Prakash Bhatt                                   }
      Aged 69 learned, Indian Inhabitant                 }        ....Petitioner
      3, Seagull building, Carmicheal                    }
      Road, Mumbai - 400 026                             }

             V/s.

      1. State of Maharashtra                            }
                                                         }
      2. Central Bureau of Investigation                 }
      through its Director, CBI Headquarters,            }
      CGO Complex, New Delhi                             }        .....Respondents
      Also having its offce in Mumbai at                 }
      13th Floor, Plot No. C35A, 'G' Block,              }
      Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC),                        }
      learned MTNL Exchange, Bandra (learned),           }
      Mumbai- 400098                                     }
                                                         }
      3. Union of India                                  }

      Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Bhosale, Mr.
      Ishwar Nankani i/b M/s. Nankani & Associates for Petitioner
      Mr. H. S. Venegavkar with Mr. Shreeram Shirsat for Respondent nos.
      2&3
      Mr. J. P. Yagnik APP for the State

                               CORAM :   S. S. SHINDE &
                                         MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 23.03.2021 PRONOUNCED ON: 08.04.2021

JUDGMENT: [PER: MANISH PITALE, J.]

111.21 wp-Final.doc

1] Heard.

2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

parties, Petition is heard fnally.

3] The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by travel restrictions imposed

upon him. Although specifc look out circular or any such direction is

not the subject matter of the present Petition, as the Petitioner states

that he was not aware of any such document, the grievance of the

Petitioner is, that he was wrongly detained at the Mumbai Airport on

29/09/2018 by immigration offcials. The Petitioner was later

released and then he was directed to contact Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) on a particular mobile number. According to the

Petitioner, when he made attempts to contact on the said mobile

number, there was no response. On a series of communications sent

to the Respondent No. 2-CBI, inquiring as to why he was detained,

the Petitioner did not receive any reply. According to the Petitioner, he

is constrained to fle the present Writ Petition, since he does not wish

to attempt to travel abroad without any clarity in the matter, as he

might be further detained at the airport, which would have an

adverse effect on his reputation.

111.21 wp-Final.doc

4] The Petitioner is a former Chairman of State Bank of India

(SBI). It is stated that after his retirement from the said position, he

is on the board of directors of reputed multinational companies and

also banks, including the Standard Chartered Bank, London, due to

which he is required to frequently travel abroad. The Petitioner states

that on 19/02/2018, he received a letter from a special investigation

team of Respondent no. 2-CBI asking him to remain present at the

offce of CBI at New Delhi for examination. This was in connection

with offence registered against the owner of Kingfsher Airlines i.e.

Vijay Mallya, pertaining to loan disbursed to the said Airlines during

the tenure of the Petitioner as Chairman of the SBI. According to the

Petitioner, on 29.03.2018, he appeared before Respondent no. 2-CBI

and answered their questions on the said date and thereafter, he was

never called for further questioning.

5] The Petitioner further states that even after the said date i.e.

29.03.2018, he travelled abroad on business and personal visits and

every time he returned back to India. According to the Petitioner, he

is not an accused in the aforesaid case concerning Kingfsher Airlines

and he is also not an accused in any other criminal case. On this

111.21 wp-Final.doc

basis, it is submitted that action of the immigration offcials at the

Mumbai Airport of detaining the Petitioner on 29/09/2018 was

wholly illegal and if it was at the behest of the CBI, there was no

communication or explanation forthcoming from CBI as to why the

Petitioner was sought to be restrained from travelling abroad. Since

the Petitioner was not aware about any lookout circular (LOC) issued

against him at the behest of the CBI, he had no alternative but to air

his grievance in accordance with law.

6) It is in this backdrop that the Petitioner initially fled an

Application, being Misc. Application No. 2093 of 2019, before the

Court of Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay at Mumbai, seeking

an appropriate order for quashing of the LOC, if any, issued against

him at the behest of the CBI. In this Application, the Petitioner stated

that he was neither an accused in the F.I.R. concerning investigation

concerning Kingfsher Airlines nor was there any allegation of his

involvement in any such offence. The Petitioner relied upon various

Judgments to contend that the LOC, if any, deserved to be quashed.

By order dated 25/02/2020, the aforesaid Court rejected the

Application, primarily on the ground that LOC being an executive

111.21 wp-Final.doc

order, it could be appropriately challenged before a Constitutional

Court and that since the said Court did not have inherent

jurisdiction, it could not entertain the prayers made in the

Application on behalf of the Petitioner.

7] Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner fled the present Writ

Petition, challenging the said order passed by the Special Court and

also seeking directions against the CBI for lifting travel restrictions

imposed upon him.

8] Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for

the Petitioner emphasized in his submissions before this Court that

the Petitioner is neither an accused in the F.I.R. concerning offence

registered in connection with the Kingfsher Airlines and its owner

Vijay Malya nor is he an accused in any other case. It is submitted

that in the absence of the Petitioner being arraigned as an accused,

there is no propriety or jurisdiction with Respondent no. 2-CBI or

Respondent no. 3 Union of India (UOI) to issue any executive order,

much less a LOC, to impose travel restrictions on the Petitioner. It is

further submitted that the Petitioner had promptly appeared before

Respondent No. 2-CBI on 29/03/2018, pursuant to the notice

111.21 wp-Final.doc

received and he had answered and responded to the queries put to

him during the said questioning. It was further submitted that even

after 29/03/2018, the Petitioner had travelled abroad on business

and personal trips. He was not restrained during the said trips and

each time, he had returned back to India.

9] It was further submitted that the Petitioner is a person of high

repute, having been Chairman of SBI and presently being on the

board of directors of highly reputed companies in India and abroad,

as also banks like the Standard Chartered Bank in London. It was

submitted that in the context of his work profle, the Petitioner was

required to frequently travel abroad and he also visited his daughter

abroad. According to the Petitioner, it was surprising that when he

was not restrained from travelling even after 29/03/2018 on a

number of occasions, as to why suddenly on 29/09/2018, he was

detained at the Mumbai International Airport by the immigration

offcials on the basis of directions issued by CBI. The Petitioner was

still not aware about LOC, if any, issued against him and the basis of

the same. In fact, the Petitioner gave details of his travel from March

2018 to September 2018 to support his aforesaid contentions. Details

111.21 wp-Final.doc

of his travel were placed before this Court in the form of a chart.

10] Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted

that relevant circulars/notifcations/offce memoranda pertaining to

issuance of LOCs issued from time to time by Respondent no. 3-UOI

demonstrated that no such LOC could have been issued in respect of

the Petitioner, since he is not arraigned as an accused in any

criminal case. Learned senior counsel further relied upon Judgments

of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts to

support his contention that LOC could not have been issued in the

context of the Petitioner and that, imposition of such travel

restrictions against the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of

the present case was wholly arbitrary. The learned senior counsel

relied upon Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of

Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla V/s. State of Maharashtra [2020 SCC

OnLine SC 807], Nikesh Tarachand Shah V/s. Union of India [(2018)

11 Supreme Court Cases 1], Judgment of Delhi High Court in the

matter of Sumer Singh Salkan V/s. Asst. Director & Ors. [ILR (2010)

VI Delhi 706, Judgments of this Court in the matters of Afzal Jaffer

Khan V/s. The Offcer, CBI ACB Offce & Ors. [Cri. Writ Petition No.

111.21 wp-Final.doc

263 of 2019] and Sucheta Omprakash Goenka V/s. State of

Maharashtra [Cri. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2019] and Judgments of

Madras High Court in the matters of Karti P. Chidambaram V/s.

Bureau of Immigration [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229] and Shriram

Sankaran V/s. State [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 205].

11] On the other hand, Mr H. S. Venegaokar learned counsel

appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that Circulars and

offce memoranda issued from time to time by Respondent No. 3- UOI

granted suffcient powers for issuance of LOC against the Petitioner.

In the affdavit-in-reply fled before this court, it was stated that an

LOC dated 4/09/2018 was issued against the petitioner and other

high profle persons who were arraigned as accused, so as to see that

they do not fee from India for escaping prosecution. It was further

stated that in the examination of petitioner on 29/03/2018 before

CBI, he had failed to give satisfactory answers in the context of his

actions pertaining to sanctioning of loan facilities to Kingfsher

Airlines. As the said case involved huge economic loss to the banks,

including SBI, of which the petitioner was Chairman at the relevant

time, it was necessary to ensure that the petitioner did not fee from

111.21 wp-Final.doc

the country, particularly when high profle accused persons in the

said case had already fed.

12) The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 placed

reliance on Circulars and offce memoranda dated 5/09/1979,

27/12/2000, 27/10/2010, 5/12/2017 and 12/10/2018, to support

the impugned action taken against the petitioner. It is submitted that

said Circulars/offce memoranda provided necessary powers to

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take such action against the petitioner to

ensure that he does not fee from the country, particularly when it

was suspected that he was involved in high value economic offences.

13] The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is

that when he is not arraigned as an accused in any FIR, much less

FIR pertaining to offences registered against the owner of Kingfsher

Airlines, there was no basis for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to impose

travel restrictions on him. In fact, the petitioner was not even aware

about the exact date on which LOC was issued against him and it

was only when affdavit-in-reply was fled on behalf of Respondent

No. 2, that it became clear that LOC dated 4/09/2018 was issued on

the basis of which the petitioner was detained at the Mumbai

111.21 wp-Final.doc

international airport on 29/09/2018. According to Respondent No. 2,

the said LOC was issued and kept alive against the petitioner for

justifable and proper reasons.

14] It is relevant that the petitioner was called for questioning on

29/03/2018 before Respondent No. 2-CBI at its Delhi offce and the

petitioner did attend such summons. According to the petitioner, he

answered the queries put to him, but the Respondent No. 2 has

taken a stand that such answers were not satisfactory. It is also

signifcant that despite having called the petitioner for questioning

and having interacted with him on 29/03/2018, travel restriction was

not imposed upon him and he did undertake international travel on 9

occasions after such questioning by Respondent No. 2-CBI. The

Petitioner admittedly travelled in May 2018 on three occasions to

United Kingdom, Germany and United States of America. In June

2018, he travelled twice, once to USA and then to Nigeria. In July

2018, the Petitioner travelled to Indonesia, United Kingdom and

Mauritius. He then travelled in September 2018 to the United

Kingdom. Thus, it is evident that despite the stand taken by the

respondent No.2-CBI that the answers given by the petitioner on

111.21 wp-Final.doc

29/03/2018 during his questioning were not satisfactory, he freely

travelled up to September 2018, in and out of India.

15] The petitioner is a retired Chairman of SBI and he is director of

reputed Indian and multinational companies and he is also on the

board of reputed banks, including Standard Chartered Bank,

London. He is required to travel internationally for work related to

such positions that he holds. He is also required to travel on personal

visits as his daughter is living abroad. The question for consideration

is, when the petitioner is not arraigned as an accused in any FIR and

when despite his being questioned by Respondent No. 2 on

29/03/2018, he was permitted to travel freely in and out of India till

September 2018, what was the reason that triggered issuance of LOC

dated 4/09/2018 issued against him. It is signifcant that after

29.03.2018, the respondent No.2-CBI did not call the Petitioner for

questioning till date.

16] In the affdavit-in-reply fled on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it

has been repeatedly stated that the Petitioner had a major role to play

as Chairman of SBI in disbursal of loan amounts to the Kingfsher

Airlines. It is also stated that the Petitioner was chairman of the

111.21 wp-Final.doc

committee which permitted disbursal of such huge amounts of loan

despite objections raised by junior offcials of SBI. An attempt is

made in the affdavit-in-reply to show as if the petitioner is deeply

involved in the case pertaining to the Kingfsher Airlines. Yet, it is

nowhere stated that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in the said

case. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was called

only once on 29/03/2018 to attend the offce of Respondent No. 2-

CBI for questioning. Thereafter, till date the petitioner has not been

called even once in connection with the said case or any other case of

fnancial irregularities. As noted above, the Petitioner continued to

travel in and out of India till September 2018 i.e. about six months

after being questioned by Respondent No. 2- CBI. There is nothing

placed on record by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding what further

material they required from the petitioner, which necessitated

imposition of travel restrictions on him by issuance of LOC dated

4/09/2018.

17] In this context, it would be relevant to refer to Judgments relied

by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the case

of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla [cited supra] the Hon'ble Supreme

111.21 wp-Final.doc

Court considered the case of an appellant who was arraigned as an

accused for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 469,

470,471 & 474 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering the

material on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the facts

and circumstances of the said case, lodging of FIR ought not to create

a bar on the travel of the Appellant for specifed period for re-

validation of his green card. While granting relief to the Appellant

therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in such cases

where FIR was registered against persons seeking to travel abroad,

balance could be struck between public interest in enforcement of

criminal justice and rights of the accused. The Appellant therein was

permitted to travel abroad.

18] In the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah [cited supra] the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while considering the question of fundamental rights

pertaining to life and personal liberty, held that fundamental rights,

particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India, were nothing less

than sacrosanct and that Constitutional Courts would come to the

aid of a person who is able to demonstrate violation of such

sacrosanct rights.

111.21 wp-Final.doc

19] In the case of Sumer Singh Salkan [cited supra] the Delhi High

Court specifcally ruled on LOC issued against the Petitioner. In the

said Judgment the Delhi High Court posed certain questions and

answered the same in the context of LOCs. Relevant portion of the

said Judgment reads as follows:

"The questions raised in the reference are as under:

"A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Look-out- Circular and under what circumstances?

B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Look-out-circular?

C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened?

D. What is the role of the concerned Court when. such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene?

The questions are answered as under:

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused

111.21 wp-Final.doc

leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

B. The Investigating Ofcer shall make a written request for LOC to the offcer as notifed by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent offcer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before 1.0. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the offcer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts jurisdiction in affrming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affrming NBWs.

12. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms".

20] The said Judgment was relied upon by a Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Afzal Jaffer Khan [cited supra]. In the said case,

111.21 wp-Final.doc

the Division Bench of this Court held that a lookout notice issued

after a period of 6 years from the date of registration of crime

deserved to be quashed. The Petitioner therein was permitted to

travel abroad. It is relevant that the petitioner therein was arraigned

as an accused in FIR registered for offence punishable under section

420 of the IPC r/w provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Thus, persons specifcally arraigned as accused were also granted

relief by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

21] In the case of Sucheta Omprakash Goenka [cited supra]

Division Bench of this Court allowed the petition and set aside look

out notice by specifcally taking note of the fact that the Petitioner

therein was neither named in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet.

Specifc reliance was placed on the above quoted portion of the

Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan

[cited supra].

22] In the case of Karti P. Chidambaram [cited supra] the Madras

High Court set aside LOC issued against the petitioner therein. In the

said Judgment, the Madras High Court interpreted aforementioned

Circulars/offce memoranda relied upon by the learned counsel

111.21 wp-Final.doc

appearing for Respondent No. 2-CBI herein. After considering the

purport of the said Circulars/offce memoranda, the Madras High

Court categorically found that a Writ Court exercising power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India could certainly judicially

review the executive decision of issuance of LOCs and if found

arbitrary, the same could be set aside. Similarly, in the case of

Shriram Sankaran [cited supra] the Madras High Court set aside an

LOC.

23] Thus, it becomes clear from the said Judgments relied upon by

the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that issuance

of LOC being an executive action based on aforementioned Circulars/

offce memoranda, it is open to judicial review before the Writ Court.

In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the said

Circulars/offce memoranda. A perusal of the same would show that

the Union of India issued a letter/circular dated 5/09/1979 to all

State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to put in

place a mechanism for issuance of warning circulars to immigration

authorities and such warnings be considered as look out notices,

which would lapse after a period of one year. Offce memorandum

111.21 wp-Final.doc

dated 27/12/2000 issued by Union of India specifed that when an

LOC was issued in respect of an Indian citizen, it would have to be

issued with the approval of an offcer not below the rank of Deputy

Secretary to the Government of India and that such LOC would be

valid for a period of only one year. It was further provided that such

LOC could be extended before expiry of the period of one year.

Thereafter, offce memorandum dated 27/10/2010 was issued, which

referred to the aforesaid Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of

Sumer Singh Salkan [cited supra]. The questions posed by Delhi High

Court and answers rendered in that context were quoted in the said

offce memorandum dated 27/10/2010. Thereafter, a procedure was

elaborately stated for issuance of LOCs. Relevant portion providing

guidelines for issuance of such LOCs reads as follows:

"8. In accordance with the order dated 26.7.2010 of the High Court of Delhi, the matter has been discussed with the concerned agencies and the following guidelines are hereby laid down regarding issuance of LOCs in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners:

a) The request for opening an LOC would be made by the agency to Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration (Bol), East Block-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 66 (Telefax: 011-

111.21 wp-Final.doc

2619244) in the Proforma enclosed.

b) The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an offcer not below the rank of

i. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, or

ii. Joint Secretary in the State Government, or

iii. District Magistrate of the District concerned; or

iv. Superintendent of Police (SP) of the District concerned; or

v. SP in CBI or an offcer of equivalent level working in CBI; or

vi. Zonal Director in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or an offcer of equivalent level (including Assistant Director (Ops.) in Headquarters of NCB) ; or

vii. Deputy Commissioner or an offcer of equivalent level in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Excise and Customs; or

viii. Assistant Director of IB/BoI; or

ix. Deputy secretary of R&AW; or

x. An offcer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in National Investigation Agency; or

111.21 wp-Final.doc

xi. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or

xii. Protector of Emigrants in the offce of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an offcer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the Government of India, or

xiii. Designated offcer of Interpol.

Further, LOCs can also be issued as per directions of

any Criminal Court in India.

c) The name and designation of the offcer signing the Proforma for requesting, issuance of an LOC must invariably be mentioned without which the request for issuance of LOC would not be entertained.

d) The contact details of the originator must be provided in column VI of the enclosed Proforma. The contact telephone/mobile number of the respective control room should also be mentioned to ensure proper communication of effective follow up action.

e) Care must be taken by the originating agency to ensure that complete identifying particulars of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened are indicated in the proforma mentioned above. It should be noted that an LOC cannot be opened unless a minimum of three identifying parameters, as given in the enclosed Proforma, apart from sex and nationality, are available. However, LOC can also be issued if name and passport particulars

111.21 wp-Final.doc

of the person concerned are available. It is the responsibility of the originator to constantly review the LOC requests and proactively provide additional parameters to minimize harassment to genuine passengers

f) The legal liability of the action taken by the immigration authorities in pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating agency.

g) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed Proforma regarding 'reason for opening LOC' must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained.

h) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/ arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases.

i) The LOC will be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue and name of the subject shall be automatically removed from the LOC thereafter unless the concerned agency requests for its renewal within a period of one year. With effect from 1.1.2011, all LOCs with more than one year validity shall be deemed to have lapsed unless the agencies concerned specifcally request Bol for continuation of the names in the LOC. However, this

111.21 wp-Final.doc

provision for automatic deletion after one year shall not be applicable in following cases:

a) Ban-entry LOCs issued for watching arrival of wanted persons (which have a specifc duration);

b) loss of passport LOCs (which ordinarily continue till the validity of the document);

c) LOCs regarding impounding of passports;

d) LOCs issued at behest of Courts and Interpol

j) In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued without complete parameters and /or case details against Cl suspects, terrorists, anti-national elements etc. in larger national interest.

k) The following procedure will be adopted in case statutory bodies like the NCW, the NHRC and the National Commission for Protection of Children's Rights request for preventing any Indian/foreigner from leaving India. Such requests along with full necessary facts are frst to be brought to the notice of law enforcement agencies like the police. The S.P. concerned will then make the request for issuance of an LOC upon an assessment of the situation, and strictly in terms of the procedure outlined for the purpose. The immigration/emigration authorities will strictly go by the communication received from the offcers authorized to open LoCs as detailed in the para 8

(b) above."

111.21 wp-Final.doc

24] It is crucial that in the above quoted portion of the offce

memorandum dated 27/10/2010, it is specifed that recourse to

issuance of LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under the IPC

or other penal laws. It is also specifed therein that in cases where

there is no cognizable offence under the IPC or other penal laws, LOC

subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the

country. The agency which has caused the issuance of LOC can only

request that it be informed about arrival/departure of the subject in

such cases. This is of signifcance in the present Writ Petition.

25] Thereafter, offce memorandum dated 5/12/2017 was issued,

which provided for further contingencies in which LOCs could be

issued. In the said offce memorandum, it was provided as follows.

"In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such

cases, as would not be covered by the guidelines above,

whereby departure of a person from India may be declined

at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in

clause (b) of the above-referred OM, if it appears to such

authority based on inputs received that the departure of

such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security

111.21 wp-Final.doc

or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the

bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic

and/or economic interests of India or if such person is

allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of

terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such

departure ought not be permitted in the larger public

interest at any given point in time". Instead of:

"In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued without complete parameters and/or case details against CI suspects, terrorists, anti-national elements, etc in larger national interest".

26] Thereafter, offce memorandum dated 12/10/2018 was issued,

which further provided for issuance of LOCs and it stated as follows:

"The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's letter No. OM 25016/31/2010-Imm dated 27.10.2010 and subsequent OM No. 25016/10/2017-Imm(pt) dated 05.12.2017, 19.07.2018 &19.09.2018 on the above mentioned subject and to say that request of the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance to include "Chairman (State Bank of India)/Managing Directors and Chief Executive Offcers (MDs and CEOs) of all other Public Sector Banks" in the list of offcers who can make a request for opening of Look Out Circulars

111.21 wp-Final.doc

(LOCs) has been considered in this Ministry.

2. It has accordingly been decided, with the approval of the Competent Authority, to add the following as sub-para

(xv) in para 8(b) of this Ministry's OM No. 25016/31/2010- Imm dated 27th October, 2010:-

"(xv) Chairman/Managing Directors/Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks"

2. The remaining contents of the OM No. 25016/31/2010- Imm dated 27.10.2010 under reference will remain the same".

27] A perusal of the above referred and above quoted offce

memoranda would show that in the present case, since the petitioner

is not arraigned as accused for cognizable offence and he was merely

called for questioning only once by Respondent No. 2-CBI in

connection with case of Kingfsher Airlines, travel restrictions could

not have been imposed upon him. All that Respondent No. 2-CBI

could insist upon, under clause (h) of the offce memorandum dated

27.10.2010, was that it be informed about arrival/departure of the

petitioner in connection with his trips abroad. It is not even the case

of the respondents that if the petitioner is permitted to leave the

country it would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security or

111.21 wp-Final.doc

integrity of India or bilateral relations with any country or to the

strategic/economic interests of India. It is also not the case of the

respondents that any amounts are to be recovered from the petitioner

for which the Chairman of the SBI or any other public sector bank

has made a request for issuance of LOC.

28) There can be no doubt that the petitioner needs to co-operate

with Respondent No. 2-CBI in that regard. But, it cannot be said that

Respondent No. 2 was entitled to impose travel restrictions to prevent

the petitioner from travelling abroad. We are of the opinion that in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, the Writ Petition

deserves to be allowed, although certain conditions need to be

imposed on the petitioner in the interest of Justice.

29] In view of above, Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms:

(a) The Petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad for his personal and professional obligations, subject to the following.

(b) Respondent No. 2-CBI, under the aforementioned offce memoranda, would be entitled to being informed about the travel details, including dates of departure and arrival of the petitioner, in and out of India. Accordingly, the petitioner shall inform Respondent No. 2-CBI about his travel details in

111.21 wp-Final.doc

future when he travels abroad for business or personal visits. He shall give the details of his departure from and arrival in India in connection with such visits. The petitioner shall also inform the respondent no.2 CBI about his address at such destinations abroad during such visits and his contact numbers at such places.

(c) The Respondent No.2-CBI shall furnish to the petitioner details of contact numbers including mobile numbers, e- mail addresses and other details of its offcials to whom the petitioner shall provide the details as mentioned in clause (b) above, within two weeks from today.

(d) The Petitioner shall co-operate with Respondent No. 2- CBI if the said Respondent calls upon him to attend its offce.

30] It is clarifed that if any incriminating material is found by

Respondent no. 2-CBI to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance

with law, the instant Judgment and Order will not come in the way of

the said Respondent.

31] Rule is made absolute in above terms and the Writ Petition

stands disposed of.

      [MANISH PITALE, J.]                          [S. S. SHINDE, J.]