Smt. Mullapudi Srivani vs Bureau Of Immigration
2023 Latest Caselaw 753 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.24696 OF 2022

ORAL ORDER

            Heard Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.Vijaya Kanth, learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. V.Dyumani, learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. According to the petitioner, she joined as a Managing

Director of the M/s. Progressive Constructions Limited and it was

incorporated in the year 1981. She resigned on 07.04.2016 and there

are no cases including criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

There is no investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate

under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

However respondent No.3 bank had already filed an application vide

O.A.No.459 of 2016 against M/s Progressive Construction Limited

and the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.287,26,89,506.79

ps and a certificate dated 13.11.2018 was issued by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.

3. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the said

company has approached respondent No.3 bank by way of submitting

OTS proposal and the same was accepted by the Bank for an amount

of Rs.1,21,00,00,000/- vide proceedings dated 14.12.2022. In the said

letter itself, it is specifically mentioned that the Bank shall adjust the

upfront amount of Rs.90,00,00,000/- upon conveying the OTS

sanction. The said company has to pay balance amount of

Rs.31,00,00,000/- on or before 30.06.2023. The said facts are not

disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

4. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.3 to5 bank would submit that the said company has to pay about

Rs.2109.29crores to all the banks including 31 crores to the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 banks. In the aforesaid O.A.No.459 of 2016

petitioner was arrayed as Defendant No.2 and petitioner and other

respondents to the said O.A.No.459 of 2016 are jointly and severally

liable for the decreetal amount. Therefore, in the economic interest of

the country, respondent Nos.3 to 5 have issued lookout circular

against the petitioner in terms of guidelines dated 22.02.2021 issued

by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Respondent Nos.3

to 5 are conducting review of the aforesaid LOC issued against the

petitioner herein. Therefore, according to learned counsel appearing

for respondent Nos.3 to 5, there is no irregularity in issuing and

maintaining the said LOC on the petitioner.

5. As stated above, there are no criminal cases pending

against the petitioner and there is no investigation initiated by the

Enforcement Directorate under PMLA. However, learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of written

instructions dated 20.06.2022 of Originators, Foreigners Regional

Registration Office, Hyderabad would submit that Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Jaipur South, Rajasthan has issued LOC

against the petitioner in FIR No.51 of 2016 dated 06.02.2016 and the

same is pending. However, according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, eight crimes were registered against the petitioner, out of

which 6 crimes were closed and with regard to the other two crimes,

the said company is not in a position to get the whereabouts of

complaints.

6. However, petitioner is seeking permission of this Court to

travel abroad to attend a programme i.e., Landmark graduates

scheduled from 13.02.2023 to 25.02.2023 in Norway. In proof of the

same, she has filed copy of invitation etc.

7. In view of the above facts and submissions, it is relevant

to note that in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India1, it was held by

the Apex Court that no person can be deprived of his right to go

1978(1)SCC 248

abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law

contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Paragraph No.5 of the

said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:-

Thus, no person can be deprived of his right

to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the

State prescribing the procedure for so depriving

him and the deprivation is effected strictly in

accordance with such procedure. It was for this

reason, in order to comply with the requirement

of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the

Passport Act, 1967 for regulating the tight to go

abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the

Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the

circumstances under which a passport may be

issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and

also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the

question is whether that is sufficient compliance

with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort

of procedure enough or must the procedure

comply with any particular requirements?

Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair

or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by

the learned Attorney General who with his usual

candour frankly stated that it was not possible

for him to contend that any procedure howsoever

arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed

by the law.

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be

deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.

8. Referring to the said principle and also the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in several other judgments, considering the

guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time, the

Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India2 held that a right to travel abroad

cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.

Without communicating the LOC to the subject of LOC, the

authorities cannot seek to enforce it as it would not have any effect in

law.

9. In view of the law laid down by aforesaid judgments and

also considering the fact that petitioner wants to travel abroad for

(2022) SCC online P&H 1176

short period, this Court is inclined to grant permission to the petitioner

to travel abroad on certain conditions.

i. Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the respondent No.3

- Bank against the petitioner is suspended for the period

from 13.02.2023 to 25.02.2023.

ii. Respondent bank shall inform/communicate this order to

respondent No.2 - Immigration Officer in terms of

Office Memorandum, dated 22.02.2021.

iii. The petitioner shall inform his arrival/departure to the

respondent No.3 - Bank in terms of the said Office

Memorandum, dated 22.02.2021 and he shall cooperate

with the Bank by furnishing information/documents, if

any, as and when required.

iv. Respondent No.3 - Originating Agency shall review

LOC dated 07.05.2022 issued against the petitioner

herein on quarterly and annual basis, submit proposals, if

any, immediately after such a review in terms of the said

Office Memorandum, dated 22.02.2021.

v. Both the petitioner and the respondents are directed to

comply with the guidelines issued by the Government of

India vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021.

vi. Liberty is granted to the respondents to take action

against the petitioner in the event of violation of any of

the aforesaid conditions.

10. This Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order

as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall also stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

Note: Furnish C.C by 14.02.2023 13th February, 2023 ssy