9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1037 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of look-out circular/communication - Whether the grounds urged in the writ petition and reiterated in this intra-court appeal by the petitioner merits acceptance or rejection? - HELD THAT - It is the specific act emerging from the said OMs which the petitioner seeks to assail in the writ petition and when examined in this background it would emerge from the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of MANEKA GANDHI s wherein the Hon ble Apex Court (per Hon ble Mr. Justices Bhagawati Untwalia and Fazal Ali) have observed that procedure established by law under Article 21 must meet the requirement of Article 14 and it has been further held the right to travel abroad cannot be regarded as forming part of Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g) since such right is not guaranteed and such right cannot be inferred as a peripheral or concomitant right under Article 19(1). In the instant case the cause for issuance of LOC against the petitioner has been indicated by the third respondent in its statement of objections vide paragraph 5 and extraction of the same would only burden this judgment and as such we desist from doing so - Thus respondent No. 3 and 4 being empowered to issue the LOCs by virtue of OM dated 22.11.2018 and larger public interest which also governs the economic interests of India same have been issued which cannot be the subject matter of judicial scrutiny inasmuch as the subjective satisfaction arrived at by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 based on objective assessment being inconsonance with the extant OMs. The LOCs issued against the petitioner by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the consequential endorsement dated 08.12.2020 issued by respondent No. 1 as affirmed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmities either in law - Writ appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against the petitioner. 2. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Adequacy of post-decisional hearing. 4. Economic interests and larger public interest considerations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) Issued Against the Petitioner: The petitioner, a promoter of various companies, was prevented from traveling abroad due to LOCs issued by the respondents. The LOCs were issued based on the petitioner's substantial debts amounting to Rs. 2800 Crores owed to public sector banks, and the alleged financial irregularities and mismanagement of his companies. The court upheld the LOCs, noting that the petitioner had admitted to defaults and that the banks were justified in their actions to recover public money. The court emphasized the importance of national and economic interests, stating that the subjective satisfaction of the banks based on objective assessments was sufficient for issuing LOCs. 2. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner argued that preventing him from traveling abroad violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India*, which held that the right to travel abroad is not a guaranteed right under Article 19. The court further stated that the procedure established by law for impounding passports or issuing LOCs must meet the requirements of Article 21, which it found to be satisfied in this case. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the constitutional validity of the Official Memorandums (OMs) governing the issuance of LOCs. 3. Adequacy of Post-Decisional Hearing: The petitioner contended that post-decisional hearing was an empty formality. The court, however, relied on the *Maneka Gandhi* case, which upheld the validity of post-decisional hearings, stating that they provide a fair opportunity to the affected person to present their case. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the opportunity to approach the banks to explain why the LOCs were wrongly issued and seek their revocation. 4. Economic Interests and Larger Public Interest Considerations: The court highlighted the significant public and economic interest involved in the case. It noted that the petitioner’s companies were involved in large-scale financial irregularities and that the debts owed to the banks had a substantial impact on the national economy. The court stressed that the larger public interest and economic stability of the country outweighed the individual rights of the petitioner. The court cited various judgments to support the view that economic offences have serious repercussions on the country's development and that the interests of the community must be given priority. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. It held that the LOCs and the consequential endorsement were valid and did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities. The court concluded that the petitioner's fundamental rights were not violated and that the actions of the respondents were justified in the larger public and economic interest.
|
