The High Court of Delhi ruled in favour of the petitioner and allowed the former director to travel abroad by recognising the right to travel abroad as a part of personal liberty subject to certain conditions.
In this case, the petitioner, Atul Punj, who was a former promotor and director of Punj Lloyd Limited, has impugned the Look Out Circular ( LOC ) issued against him by the Department of Revenue and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
Audit Smart, Secure Strong: Lead the Digital Safety Frontier – Click here to know more
In this case, the petitioner initially challenged the LOC, restricting his international travel, to visit the UK from 14th to 30th August 2024 for business purposes. Later, through affidavits, he sought to travel from 5th to 20th December 2024. Although the period has passed, he continues to seek suspension of the LOC, citing ongoing business commitments and the possibility of rescheduling meetings.
It is to note that the primary cause of the LOC against the petitioner is the company’s financial defaults, for which the petitioner was a director.
When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the departure of an individual from a country may hinder legal proceedings or jeopardize investigations into serious transgressions, LOCs are used by authorities as a preventive mechanism.
The High Court noted that right to travel abroad has been upheld through several landmark judgements as an integral extension of Article 21 of our country ( Right to Life and Personal Liberty ) such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, and ors.
The bench, by going through the facts of the case, was of the opinion that mere inability to repay loans, without the absence of any criminal wrongdoing or material to show or squandering public money, cannot justify curtailing an individual’s right to travel enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The HC was of the strong opinion that due to the absence of conclusive findings after five years of investigation and with the petitioner’s continued cooperation, the prolonged restrictions on his right to travel cannot be justified.
Audit Smart, Secure Strong: Lead the Digital Safety Frontier – Click here to know more
The bench further held that “Therefore, in order to balance Petitioner’s right to travel abroad and the State’s interest in ensuring his availability for investigation, this Court is inclined to permit the suspension of LOC against the Petitioner by the Respondents to allow him to travel to the United Kingdom for a period of 15 days commencing from 1st February, 2025 i.e., till 15th February, 2025, subject to certain conditions such as:
INR 5 Crores with the Registrar General of this Court, which shall be kept
on an auto-renewal mode.
(b) Petitioner shall deposit the original title deeds of the property (valued at INR 53.89/- Crores), which is in the name of his wife, with the Registrar General of this Court. This security shall be accompanied by an undertaking submitted by the Petitioner’s wife that she would have no objection in case the afore-noted property is forfeited in the event any of the aforesaid conditions imposed on Petitioner are violated. In the undertaking to be submitted before the Registrar, Petitioner’s wife shall also specifically undertake that she shall not alienate or mortgage the afore-noted property without the permission of the Court, subject to further orders.
Audit Smart, Secure Strong: Lead the Digital Safety Frontier – Click here to know more
(c) Petitioner shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing his complete itinerary, including his stay at various locations abroad as well as telephone numbers and residential/ hotel addresses. He shall also file an undertaking that he shall strictly adhere to the itinerary mentioned in the affidavit and not visit any other stations. He shall also furnish a copy of the air tickets purchased by him before the Registrar General.
(d) Petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Registrar General that he shall return to the country by 15th February, 2025. Petitioner shall intimate the Registrar General before leaving as well as within 72 hours of his return from abroad.
(e) Petitioner shall also provide contact numbers where he shall be available during his stay abroad and at least one of the said contact numbers shall be kept operational at all times, subject to all fair exceptions, including the period he is on board the aircraft.
(f) Petitioner shall file a self-attested copy of his passport to the Court, along with a copy of the visa, on his return to India.
(g) Petitioner shall also deposit the passport of his wife in India with the
Registrar General of this Court.”
Thus, Justice Sanjeev Narula permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of 15 days and upheld his right to travel abroad under Article 21.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
