Palka Dhingra & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

1. This application is moved on behalf of the applicant/petitioner No.3 Mrs. Seema Dhingra seeking appropriate orders/directions of this Court facilitating off-shore travel for the period of two weeks commencing from 20.09.2024 to attend the birthday of her grandchild and also to see her daughter-in-law in Dubai.

2. During the course of hearing on the present application on 02.09.2024, a statement was given by Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI[1] that the CBI has not issued any Look-Out Circular [“LOC”] against the present applicant /petitioner No.3. The said position was reiterated on 25.09.2024.

3. However, on the same day Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank of Baroda submitted that LOC dated 05.03.2020 was actually opened at the behest of the consortium of banks led by the respondent No.1/Bank of Baroda. Further Mr. Kunal Tandon, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Indian Overseas Bank also brought to the fore that their bank had also independently sent a letter to the immigration authorities for issuance of LOC against the present petitioners.

4. On supplying of the relevant details, the writ petition has since been amended by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking appropriate reliefs.

5. Today, having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is brought out that Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a bunch of writ petitions, titled Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 719/2020 vide judgment dated 23.04.2024 has quashed the Clause 8(b)(xv) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing O.M. 23016/31/2010-Imm. Equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the O.M. dated 22.02.2021 bearing O.M. 25016/10/2017-Imm.(Pt.) whereby the Chairman/Managing Director/Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks could request for opening of an LOC.

6. The aforesaid decision has also been referred and relied upon by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. UOI[2]. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 17194- 17230/2024 and the following directions were passed vide order dated 12.08.2024: “...Pending consideration of these Special Leave Petitions on the interim stay, the private respondents/writ petitioners before the High Court shall seek permission from the High Court in the event they wish to travel abroad. It is needless to observe that if such an application is filed before the High Court in the disposed of writ petitions, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously. The pendency of these Special leave Petitions before this Court would not come in the way of the petitioners herein formulating a fresh Office Memorandum (OM), if found necessary.”

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2024 carves out an exception to the cases which already stand disposed of and

1 Central Bureau of Investigation thereby giving liberty to the parties to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and as requested by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner No.3 Mrs. Seema Dhingra, she is permitted to travel abroad i.e. Dubai, UAE[3] for a period w.e.f. 08.10.2024 till 30.11.2024 subject to fulfilling the following conditions:

(i) Before undertaking travel, the applicant/petitioner

No.3, on an affidavit shall disclose the travel itinerary, her place of stay and her contact details to the respondent banks;

(ii) The applicant/petitioner No.3 shall furnish a Fixed

Deposit Receipt of Rs. 5 lacs with the respondent NO. 1/Bank of Baroda, which on her return to India shall be returned to her;

(iii) The applicant/petitioner No.3 shall file an undertaking before this Court that she will return back to India on or before 01.12.2024.

9. The application bearing CM APPL. 50551/2024 stands disposed of.