Delhi High Court
Sh. Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 631, 2002 (64) DRJ 479
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction to the respondents to allow him to return to Bangkok in Thailand to attend to his ailing wife and minor child. Petitioner is an Indian citizen is the holder of Indian passport number Z1110596. Petitioner's case is that he had gone to Bangkok in the year 1990. He got married to one Ms. Yuwanda Phanhoub, a thai girl and from whom he begot a son. Petitioner claims to be living in Bangkok with his wife and son. Petitioner submits that he came to India only in the year 1991 and thereafter had not travelled to India at all, except the present visit on 20.2.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents declined permission to the petitioner to return to Bangkok on the ground that there was a LOC (Look Out Card) issued for him.
3. Show cause notice in the petition had been issued on 12.7.2002, returnable on 30.7.2002. Direction was also given to produce the records. Mr. Jaswinder Singh has appeared for Union of India and stated that Look Out Cart, had been issued on the basis of an intimation received from the Cabinet Secretariat (Research and Analysis Wing) that the petitioner was suspected to be engaged in illegal man power trafficking. Learned counsel further admits that Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) had made some investigations. Petitioner has also been interrogated by officials of Cabinet Secretariat and nothing incriminating has been found as a result of the investigation. It is stated that they have written to the Cabinet Secretariat for review of LOC and sought further instructions in this regard.
4. The records as produced have been perused. The perusal of the records and the nothings from the Intelligence Department, Ministry of Home Affairs indicate that so far nothing adverse against the petitioner has been found and there is a recommendation for deletion of LOC, as issued. The liberty of a citizen, including the right to travel, cannot be curtailed in these circumstances and await the outcome of further administrative processing and clearance by Government departments. Moreover, considering that the petitioner's travel documents do not disclose any frequent travel between the country i.e. Bangkok and India. Besides, no incriminating or adverse material has been found so far in the records produced showing the involvement of the petitioner in illegal man power trafficking, except the LOC issued on the basis of suspicion.
A direction is, accordingly, issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to return to Bangkok forthwith unless he is wanted for any other offence. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Records have been returned to counsel for the respondents.
