Allowed

Mrs Rumana Bai v. Union of India

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/3777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower classified as a willful defaulter challenged an immigration entry cancellation/lookout notice issued by immigration authorities at the instance of a bank. Relying on prior rulings that public sector banks cannot originate LOCs, the court held the notice unenforceable and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Look-out notice held unenforceable; respondents directed not to curtail petitioner's rights to travel abroad.

Mrs Rumana Bai Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51815 WP No. 3777 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3777 OF 2024 (GM-PASS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MRS. RUMANA BAI WIFE OF MOHAMMED GHOUSE SAIT, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.3002 GROUND FLOOR, ANRIYA ATRIEUS APARTMENT, 5^TH BLOCK, ASHWATH NAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY MS. AMANDA CHAKRAVARTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION) EAST BLOCK-VIII, LEVEL-V R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI, ALSO AT BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BENGALURU KIAL ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 300.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:51815 WP No. 3777 of 2024

¶15

FOREIGN REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, (FRRO) BANGALORE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 5^TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶16

THE CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF BARODA (EARLIER VIJAYA BANK) M G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHIBHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.02.2024 APPENDED AT ANNEXURE-B CANCELLING THE IMMIGRATION ENTRY OF THE PETITIONER ON HER PASSPORT BEARING NO. V4035041 THEREBY PREVENTING THE PETITIONER FROM TRAVELING TO JEDDAH FROM BENGALURU AS IT IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950, IN VIEW OF THERE BEING NO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY BEFORE ANY COMPETENT COURT AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:51815 WP No. 3777 of 2024

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The borrower, who is classified as will defaulter, is before this Court challenging the lookout circular issued by the respondent No.2 - Chief Immigration Officer at the behest of respondent No.3 - Bank.

¶26

This Court in WP No.20327/2022 (DD 11.9.2024) allowed the writ petition, and held that the lookout circular issued by the respondent No.2 at the instance of the respondent No.3 is held to be unenforceable by observing as follows:

¶27

"2. The issue is as to whether lookout circular can be issued at the behest of the Bank was examined by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah -vs- Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and another and other connected matters - (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195).

¶28

Negating the authority of PSBs to originate requests to issue LOCs against defaulters, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195] , had summarised the guidelines for issuing Look-out Circulars as follows:

¶29

LOCs may only be issued by the investigative agency in cognizable offences under the Penal Code, 1860, or other penal laws where the accused

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51815 WP No. 3777 of 2024

¶31

is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the Trial Court despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants and other measures. The LOC is used when there is a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial or arrest.

¶32

The investigating officer must make a written request to the officer notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs, detailing the reasons for the LOC. Only the competent officer can authorise the issuance of the LOC.

¶33

The person against whom the LOC is issued must cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the investigating officers, surrendering to the court, or showing that the LOC was wrongly issued against them. Such a person may also approach the authority who issued the LOC to explain its wrongful issuance. The LOC may be withdrawn by the authority that issued it or rescinded by the Trial Court or a court with jurisdiction over the police station on application by the concerned individual.

¶34

The LOC is a coercive measure to compel a person to surrender to the investigating agency or court. Subordinate courts have jurisdiction similar to their role in affirming or cancelling non-bailable warrants.

¶35

In similar circumstances, placing reliance on the above, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 7927/2023 : D.D. 31.08.2024, concluded that a public sector bank could not be the originator of an LOC and that an LOC cannot be issued for every case of bank default or credit facility, and a citizen's fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed solely due to failure to repay a bank loan."

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:51815 WP No. 3777 of 2024

¶38

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) The Look-out notice issued by respondent No.2, at the instance of respondent No.3 is hereby held to be unenforceable. The respondents are hereby directed not to curtail the fundamental rights of the petitioners to travel abroad.

¶42

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶43

BKM

Mrs Rumana Bai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Rumana Bai 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

Smt Saritha Gouthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Koragakallu Sri Swamy Koragajja Seva Trust (Reg) Vs the District Commissioner

Veda Vyasa Bhat Vs the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

Smt. Yogeshwari G., Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Government Flying Training School

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Reserve Bank of India