9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1507 - HC - Indian LawsRight to travel - Interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - whether the expression personal liberty occurring in the said Article includes the right to travel abroad? - whether the refusal to grant permission to travel abroad results in the infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT - The immovable properties of Petitioner are mortgaged with Respondent No. 1 Bank. The Petitioner has also stated that fixed deposit receipts worth 67 crores lie with respondent No.1 Bank. It is stated that the Government of India and the Government of Turkey entered into an extradition agreement on 27.02.2004 to extradite any person who has been accused or convicted of an offence as described under Article 2 of the said Agreement. It is stated that the Petitioner had already travelled to Abu Dhabi to attend his friend's marriage in the month of October 2019 for three days and had returned to India. The above factors sufficiently protect the rights of Respondent No. 1 to recover the amount of dues from Petitioner. The order refusing permission to travel abroad has been made in contravention of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and is violative of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21. The State has not made any law or provision in the said Act seeking to deprive or regulate the right of a person to travel abroad. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a person from travelling abroad in the absence of specific powers to that effect - Petitioner is permitted to travel to Turkey from 09.06.2022 to 17.06.2022 subject to furnishing undertaking as stated - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India concerning the right to travel abroad. 2. Whether the refusal to grant permission to travel abroad infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Powers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) to restrain a person from traveling abroad. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India concerning the right to travel abroad: The court examined whether the expression "personal liberty" under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad. It reiterated that "personal liberty" has a broad interpretation, encompassing the right to travel abroad and return without impediment. This right is part of the freedom of a person and is protected under Article 21, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The court cited several judgments, including Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which affirm that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. 2. Whether the refusal to grant permission to travel abroad infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The court held that any deprivation of the right to travel abroad must be according to the procedure established by law. In the absence of a specific law enacted by a competent legislature that restricts this right, any refusal to grant permission to travel abroad would violate Article 21. The court emphasized that the procedure under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. The refusal to allow the petitioner to travel abroad for his sister-in-law's marriage was found to be in contravention of Article 21. 3. Powers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the RDDBFI Act to restrain a person from traveling abroad: The court analyzed the provisions of the RDDBFI Act, particularly Sections 19 and 22, to determine if the DRT has the authority to restrain a person from traveling abroad. It concluded that the Act does not confer specific powers on the DRT to issue such a restraint. The court referred to judgments from various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court, which have held that the DRT lacks the authority to restrain a person from traveling abroad in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. The court also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the Gujarat High Court's judgment, reinforcing this view. Conclusion: The court concluded that the order refusing permission to travel abroad violated Article 21 of the Constitution and was therefore liable to be set aside. The DRT does not have the power to restrain a person from traveling abroad without specific statutory authority. The court permitted the petitioner to travel to Turkey from 09.06.2022 to 17.06.2022, subject to furnishing an undertaking as stated in the judgment. Order: 1. The order dated 23.05.2022 in O.A. No.330/2016 in I.A. No.634/2022 is quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner is permitted to travel to Turkey from 09.06.2022 to 17.06.2022, subject to furnishing an undertaking. 3. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
|
