Partly allowed

Arjun Rai Jain v. Union of India

Bombay HC2 May 2024WP/1922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner, relying on a decision in Viraj Chetan Shah. The petition seeking compensation was dismissed. The Bureau of Immigration was directed to ignore said LOC.

What did the court decide?

Look Out Circular against the petitioner at the instance of Bank of Baroda was quashed; Bureau of Immigration directed to ignore it. Government bound to update databases.

Arjun Rai Jain vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18-OSWP-1922-2024+.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 2024

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16788 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 2024

¶8

Arjun Rai Jain …Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors

…Respondents

Ms. Manaswi Agrawal, a/w Meraki Chambers, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.K. Halwasia, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶14

Mr.s. Divya Bamne, i/b A.R. Bamne & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.3.

¶15

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶16

DATE : MAY 02, 2024

¶17

PC :

¶18

1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶19

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate

¶20

Digitally signed byASHWINI ASHWINIJANARDANVALLAKATI JANARDANVALLAKATIDate: 2024.05.03 15:01:51 +0530

¶21

Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of Page 1 of 4 MAY 02, 2024

¶22

Ashwini Vallakati

¶23

18-OSWP-1922-2024+.doc

¶24

India, 1950 calling for the records maintained by the Respondents leading to the issuance of the Look Out Circular against the Petitioner at the behest of Respondent No.3 under the provisions of Office Memorandum and upon examining the legality, propriety and validity thereof quash the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner;

¶25

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and direct that the Office Memorandum No. 25016/102017-Imm (Pt.) dated October 12, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to the extent it authorizes designated officers of the public sector banks to initiate issuance of the Look Out Circular, is ultra vires to the Constitution of India;

¶26

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to pay to the Petitioner compensation for the breach of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner;”

¶27

We find that the issue raised in the above Writ Petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah Vs. Union of India Through The Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 719 of 2020 and other connected matters decided on 23^rd April, 2024).

¶28

Ashwini Vallakati

¶29

18-OSWP-1922-2024+.doc

¶30

In these circumstances, the Petition partly succeeds and the LOC issued against the Petitioner at the instance of Bank of Baroda is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

It is clarified that the Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as it seeks compensation in terms of prayer clause (c) reproduced above.

¶32

The Bureau of Immigration will ignore and not act upon any LOCs issued at the instance of the Bank of Baroda against the present Petitioner. All databases will be updated accordingly. We direct the Bureau of Immigration and or the Ministry of Home Affairs to do the needful in this regard.

¶33

We, however, clarify that this order will not and does not affect any existing restraint order issued by a competent authority, Court, tribunal, investigative or enforcement agency or an enforcement of any order of a Court. Where any Court or tribunal has issued a restraint order (even at the instance of a public sector bank), that order will continue to operate and the invalidation of the present LOCs cannot and will not affect such orders.

¶34

Page 3 of 4 MAY 02, 2024

¶35

Ashwini Vallakati

¶36

18-OSWP-1922-2024+.doc

¶37

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

In light of the disposal of the above Writ Petition, nothing survives in any Interim Applications pending therein, and the same are disposed of accordingly.

¶39

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶40

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶41

[ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶42

Page 4 of 4 MAY 02, 2024

¶43

Ashwini Vallakati

Arjun Rai Jain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Rai Jain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. N. Nagar Shivneri Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader

Ramchandara Baburao Sathe and Ors. Vs Dipak Devram Kadam and Ors.

Rajesh Babaji Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra through Agp and Ors.

Viren Rai Jain vs Union of India through Government Pleader

Nimit Narendra Timbadia vs Bank of Baroda

Veenu Jain vs Union of India