Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanesh Kumar Manglani vs Union Of India on 15 October, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29476
1 WP-5001-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5001 of 2024
DHANESH KUMAR MANGLANI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Singh Solanki and Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.5.
Shri Dattatray Kale, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Shri Himanshu Joshi appearing on behalf of Deputy Solicitor General.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to quash all
active Look Out Circulars issued against the
Petitioner; AND
B. Pass a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a
mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order
or direction directing the Respondents not to restrict
the Petitioner from travelling abroad; AND
C. Pass a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a
mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
direction directing the Respondents to expunge all
adverse and wrongful entries made against the
Petitioner in their Database.
D. Pass a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a
mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29476
2 WP-5001-2024
direction directing the Respondents to inform the
Petitioner in advance about issuance of Look Out
Circulars against him, if any, in future.
E. Declare that Office Memorandums issued by the
Respondent no.1 is not a law under Article 13 of the
Constitution of India and the same cannot be resorted
to curtail the fundamental rights of an Individual.
F. Pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and necessary, in the interest of justice and good
faith."
2. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.719
of 2020 (Viraj Chetan Shah V. Union of India Through the Ministry of Home
Affairs and Another ) and other connected writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1195. Attention has been drawn of this Court to paragraph Nos. 194
to 196 in which it has been held as under:
"L. CONCLUSIONS
194. For these reasons, we believe the Petitions will succeed in part. We return to the
questions we had formulated at the beginning, with our answers against each.
Q No. Question Finding
I. Can the right to travel abroad, part of the fundamental right to life No
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, be curtailed by an
executive action absent any governing statute or controlling statutory
provision?
II. Is the entire field of controlling entry and exit from India's borders The field is not fully
already fully occupied by a statute, viz., the Passports Act, 1967 and, if occupied by the
so, can the OMs authorise the issuance of such LOCs de hors the Passports Act. The
Passports Act? OMs may validly
authorise the
issuance of LOCs
in cases other than
the ones under
consideration in the
cases before us (for
instance, at the
request of another
agency or following
an order of a
Court).
III. Are the OMs per se arbitrary and unconstitutional as ultra vires No
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29476
3 WP-5001-2024
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
IV. Is the inclusion of Chairman/Managing Directors/CEOS of all public On all these
nd
sector banks in Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 22 February 2021 OM, grounds and others
effected by the previous amendment, bad in law and liable to be struck as analysed above,
down on the ground of (a) arbitrariness; (b) unreasonableness; (c) YES
improper and invalid classification; or (d) conferment/delegation of
uncanalised and excessive power?
V. Is Clause 6(L) of the 22nd February 2021 OM to the extent it is applied Is not required to be
to PSBs ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as decided.
also arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate inter alia because
the financial interests of a particular bank or even a group of banks or
all public sector banks together cannot reasonably, rationally or
logically be equated with or be placed on the same level as the
'economic interests of India'?
VI. Is Clause 6(J) of the 22nd February 2021 OM liable to be quashed in its No
entirety as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, as also per se and manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and
disproportionate because it allows LOCs to continue until cancelled
instead of providing a fixed term for them?
VII. Are the impugned LOCs--
(i) ultra vires the OMs; Does not arise
(ii) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (including for Yes
infringing a fundamental right except according to a procedure
established by law; and a failure to abide by mandated minimum
procedural norms; unreasonableness; arbitrariness; want of
proportionality), and
(iii) Arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate in equating the financial Does not require to
interest of a public sector bank with the "the economic interests of be decided.
India".
195. Consequently:
(a) Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 amended OM (equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the
2021 consolidated OM) which includes the Chairmen, Managing Directors and
Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks as authorities who may request
the issuance of a Look Out Circular is quashed.
(b) All the LOCs are quashed and set aside.
(c) The Bureau of Immigration will ignore and not act upon any LOCs issued by any
public sector banks. All databases will be updated accordingly. We do not expect the
public sector banks to do this, and therefore direct the Bureau of Immigration or
MHA to do the needful.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29476
4 WP-5001-2024
(d) All authorities at all ports of embarkation will be informed and apprised accordingly.
196. Further:
(a) This order will not and does not affect any existing restraint order issued by a
competent authority, court, tribunal or investigative or enforcement agency, or in
enforcement of any order of a court. Where, for instance, the DRT or a criminal
court has issued a restraint order (even if this is at the instance of public sector
bank), that order will continue to operate. The invalidation of the present LOCs
cannot and will not affect such orders.
(b) The banks are also always at liberty to apply to any court or tribunal under
applicable law for an order against an individual borrower, guarantor or person
indebted restraining such person from travelling overseas.
(c) In addition, the banks may invoke powers under the Fugitive Economic Offenders
Act, 2018, where applicable, notwithstanding this judgment in regard to any LOC.
(d) This judgment cannot and will not prevent the Union of India from framing an
appropriate law and establishing a procedure consistent with Article 21 of
the Constitution of India."
3. It is hence submitted that the issue in the present petition being similar, this
petition also deserves to be allowed.
4 . Having gone through the judgment of the Bombay High Court, I do not
see any reason to take a different view. Learned counsel for the respondents also
could not persuade this Court to take a different view of the matter. Consequently,
the lookout circulars issued against the petitioner by respondent No.2 are hereby
quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
