Case Details: Nitish Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 209 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bharti Dangre & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
- S/Shri Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Anupam Dighe, Ms. Chandni Tanna, Prathamesh Chavan & Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala i/b India Law Alliance, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Jitendra B. Mishra with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Rupesh Dubey and Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha i/b A.A. Ansari, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners, being directors of an exporter company, challenged the issuance and continuation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them in relation to alleged mis-declaration of export goods for availing higher duty drawback and incentives, submitting that they had appeared before the authorities, their statements were recorded, show cause notices were issued, and adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 were concluded. It was contended that no cognizable offence was alleged, no criminal case was registered, and despite repeated permissions granted by the High Court to travel abroad, which were duly complied with, the LOC dated 19/20-04-2022 continued for more than three years without review by the Bureau of Immigration, contrary to the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs governing LOCs. The Department sought to justify the LOC on the basis of intelligence inputs, alleged non-compliance with summons, and pendency of investigation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the impugned LOC did not satisfy the mandatory parameters prescribed under the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines governing the issuance and continuation of LOCs. It was held that in the absence of any cognizable offence or criminal proceedings against the petitioners, and where proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 were already underway, mere pendency of investigation or intelligence inputs could not justify continuation of the LOC. The Court held that apprehension of flight risk was untenable in light of the petitioners’ cooperation and compliance with travel permissions, and that failure to periodically review the LOC rendered its continuation impermissible. Accordingly, holding that an LOC could not be used as a coercive measure to curtail the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the High Court quashed the LOC and its subsequent renewals.
List of Cases Cited
- Rita Roy v. Union of India — Writ Petition (L) No. 13380 of 2022, decided on 2-5-2022 by Bombay High Court — Referred [Para 12]
- Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal — (1987) 1 SCC 5 — Referred — Referred [Para 11]
- Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director — 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 — Referred [Para 10]
- Vikram Sharma v. Union of India — By Delhi High Court — Relied on [Para 14]
