9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several official memoranda issued by Union of India from time to time and right to travel can be curtailed only in terms of those ingredients found in the official memoranda. The case at hand does not have a single ingredient as found in those official memoranda for issuance of a lookout circular. The petitioner is not an accused in any case under any penal law. Therefore, the very act of issuance of lookout circular against the petitioner runs counter to law or counter to the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time. The Apex Court holds that right to travel abroad is an important basic human right of great significance. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MRS.MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA [ 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T-3/STF/ 10/2022 dated 11-10-2022. 2. Facts, in brief, germane for consideration of the lis, are as follows:- The petitioner is a businessman dealing in import and export of spices and owns a firm in the name and style of Unik Traders . The petitioner has also produced certain documents with regard to the tax that he pays to the Government which depict that he has paid tax of Rs.5/- crores on 9-12-2022 and therefore, contends that he is a law abiding citizen or a law abiding businessman. On 1-10-2022 the office and residence of the petitioner was searched by the 2nd respondent/Directorate of Enforcement alleging violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( the Act ). After the conduct of said search, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuing the issue in the present petition. 4. Heard Sri P.N. Rajeshwara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 4 and Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not an accused in any crime under the IPC or under any other law. The house of the petitioner was searched on 1-10-2022 for the alleged violation of the Act which is not penal in nature and all that can be imposed, if proved against him is only a fine. The petitioner did cooperate with the 2nd respondent and appearance of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vel to Srilanka and at that point in time he was stopped at the Airport for questioning. This is in violation of the fundamental right is what the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to emphasise and submit that even this should not be permitted to happen in the case at hand. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The office and residence of the petitioner are searched on 10-2022 by the 2nd respondent Enforcement Directorate. The search leads to issuance of summons on 11-10-2022. Appearance of the petitioner was postponed to 11-11-2022. Again the Enforcement Directorate communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be questioned nor be stopped and shall not be shown segregatory treatment. He should be permitted to travel like any other passenger, as what is now required is only an information of arrival and departure of the subject between respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the impugned lookout circular cannot operate as an impediment to the petitioner whatsoever to leave the shores of the nation and the communication aforesaid is only between the originator and the Bureau of Immigration and therefore, it becomes an internal communication. It is for respondents 1 and 2 to communicate themselves with regard to arrival and departure of the petitioner. 13. It is trite that right to travel/travelling abroad is a fundamental right. A lookout circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 ). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows: Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that right to travel abroad is an important basic human right of great significance. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MRS.MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA 2 (1978) 1 SCC 248 , the Apex Court holds that refusal of such freedom to go abroad would contravene that genuine human right. Therefore the said right cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. 15. In the light of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
