Look Out Circular Must Be Supplied To Person When Stopped At Airport: P&H HC Grants Rs 1 Lakh Compensation To Woman For Losing Foreign Trip

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Look Out Circular (LOC), which prevents one from travelling abroad, must be supplied to the person at the time of being stopped at the airport and that the reasons should be communicated to the affected party. The Court further stated that the person must be given an opportunity of post-decisional hearing against the LOC.Noting that the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs is silent about these requirements, the Court read these safeguards into the OM.The Court said that the authorities may not want to issue a prior notice to the subject of the LOC as the person may clandestinely leave the country. However, the Court added it saw no impediment to give a post decisional opportunity to the party and the reasons for issuing it so that the subject of the LOC can take legal recourse to challenge it.A division bench comprising Justices MS Ramachandra Rao and Harminder Singh Madaan observed as follows :"In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC, and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India".The bench stated that the Supreme Court has held in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer and Maneka Gandhi vs.Union of India cases that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and fair, just and reasonable procedure should be followed to deprive a person of such right."It is desirable that these requirements be read into the Office Memoranda relied upon by the said respondents since it is settled law, as held in Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K.Ratna , that unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary, principles of natural justice must be read into a law even if it is silent on the aspect," the bench added.Bank of India abused its authority by requesting LOC; asked to compensate the petitionerThe LOC was issued at the request of the Bank of India over certain loan defaults by a company M/s Drish Shoes Ltd, for which the petitioner was a guarantor. The petitioner was travelling to join a US University to pursue a postgraduate MBA course on 90% scholarship. After noting that the LOC was issued with total non-application of mind and that the Bank of India abused it authority by making the request, the Court set it aside.Further, the Court directed the Bank to pay her a compensation of Rupees One Lakh to her."Since the petitioner had suffered not only the loss of reputation but also lost the cost of the ticket bought by her for travelling from India to Dubai on 22.02.2022 as she was prevented from boarding the flight by respondents No.1, 3 & 4, she is entitled to be compensated by costs of Rs.1 lakh to be paid by respondent No.2- Bank which shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order".Facts of the caseThe Court was considering a writ petition filed by on Noor Paul, who was prevented from travelling abroad to Dubai on February 22 at the New Delhi Airport by the immigration authorities on the basis of an LOC issued at the instance of the Bank of India.Challenging the LOC, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. She submitted that neither the copy of the LOC was supplied nor the reasons were communicated to her by the authorities. The petitioner got the copy of the LOC for the first time when the authorities filed it before the Court along with their written response. The Court noted that the petitioner is not an accused in any FIR and the LOC is solely on the basis of the loan defaults of the company."We do not understand how the petitioner can be termed as an 'accused' as is mentioned in the LOC when admittedly no criminal case has been initiated in any court in the country against her," the Court observed.The Court also noted that as per the Office Memorandum, a person, against whom there is a non-cognizable offence, cannot be prevented from leaving the country.The relevant extract of the OM is as follows :" In cases where there is non-cognizable offence under the IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating Authority can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases."In this backdrop, the Court noted :"When there is admittedly not even an FIR registered against the petitioner, and there is no question of her being accused of any non- cognizable offence, no LOC could have been issued by respondent No.3 to detain the petitioner. At best, the respondent No.3 could have only given information to respondent No.2 about the arrival/departure of the subject according to the OM dt. 22.02.2021".The Court agreed that the LOC provides for detaining persons even if there is ...

Look Out Circular Must Be Supplied To Person When Stopped At Airport: P&H HC Grants Rs 1 Lakh Compensation To Woman For Losing Foreign Trip

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court set aside the LOC after holding that it was issued without application of mind and directed the Bank of India to compensate the affected party.

Tags