1. Heard on IA No. 2, application for permission to petitioner No. 2 to travel abroad for medical treatment.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 8.6.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 thereby communicating them about rejection of their representation dated 11.9.2019 and also the action of the respondent bank in issuing lookout circular, effect of which is denial to the petitioner No. 2 to travel abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lookout circular has been issued against the petitioner No. 2 despite prohibitory order in this regard passed by this Court was/is in operation and petitioner No. 2 has not been permitted to travel abroad. Petitioner No. 2 is suffering from Ca prostate adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, 4 of 16 cores decease, of which treatment is required. Petitioner No. 2 is an old person of 77 years, he wants his treatment by eminent expert doctors in USA where his daughter Shailaja Malani is residing at Dallas. He will be able to obtain appointment from the doctors at USA only after an order in this regard is passed by this Court. The disposal of this writ petition is likely to take some time and therefore, looking to the medical condition of petitioner No. 2, an order may be passed granting a limited period to petitioner No. 2 to visit USA for his medical treatment and come back to India, by imposing any such conditions as may be deemed fit by this Court.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 31st August, 2022 of the High Court of Kerala in WPC No. 15649 and 18168 of 2022 in the matter of Shinas A Firdaus Vs. Union of India & others and D. Pradeep Kumar Vs. UOI & others and the order of the High Court of Telangana in the matter of Dr. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti VS. UCO Bank reported in

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the said application.

Reliance has been placed on the order dated 6.6.2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in WPS No. 6892/2022 in the matter of Garikapati Venkateswara Rao Vs. UOI and others.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The petitioner No. 2 has filed various medical documents which show that he is suffering from Ca prostate adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, 4 of 16 cores decease.

7. In the matter of Menka Gandhi Vs. Union of India,(1978) 1 SCC 248, [LQ/SC/1978/27] it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereunder:

"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the tight to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law."

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telengana in the matter of Garikapati Venkateswara Rao (supra), in para 17 of which the High Court observed as under:

"17. As per the Office Memorandum dt. 12.10.2018, the conspectus of the issuance of the LOC was broadened to include the economic offenders hampering the interests of India and as such, a lookout circular can be issued in larger public interest. As the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner and if lookout circular is lifted and if the petitioner disappears, the recovery proceedings would be brought to standstill and recovery of crores of public money would become impossible. Hence, it is considered fit to dismiss the petition."

9. In the present case, petitioner No. 2 has filed this application on the ground of his medical condition. The respondents have not challenged the authenticity or genuineness of the said medical documents. He is 77 years old person and wants to avail himself the medical facilities available in USA where his daughter is residing. According to him, his properties and company are situated in India. The respondent authorities are not in a position to explain as to why it required the physical presence of petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of continuation of recovery proceedings and to recover the amount by initiating proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. In the matter of Dr. Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti (supra) the High Court of Telangana observed in para 7(xiv) of its order as under:

"xiv) As discussed above, both the petitioners are intending to travel abroad on business and personal purposes. The Bank is not in a position to explain as to why they are continuing the issuance of Lookout Circulars against the petitioners except saying in the economic interest of India. The Bank is also not in a position to explain as to why it required the physical presence of the petitioners for the purpose of continuation of recovery proceedings and to recover the amount by initiating proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, physical presence of petitioners is not required for the purpose of continuation of the aforesaid recovery proceedings. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant relief to both the petitioners herein"

10. In the instant case also, the respondents have objected to this application of petitioner No. 2 on the ground that he is offender of economic offence and lookout circular is issued in larger public interest, but looking to the medical condition of petitioner No. 2 and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the application IA No. 02 stands allowed on the following conditions:

(i) If petitioner No. 2 is granted VISA, the lookout circular dated July, 2020 issued by the respondent Bank against petitioner No. 2 shall remain suspended for a period of six months from the date of journey/one week before the date of appointment with doctor in USA. He shall inform the respondent authorities about his departure and arrival in advance.

(ii) After obtaining VISA, Petitioner No. 2 shall furnish the details of VISA as also of the Passport to the respondent authorities.

(iii) Petitioner No. 2 shall furnish his Adhar Card, contact details of himself as well as his daughter living in USA as also furnish the residential and official address of his daughter living in USA, to the respondent authorities/investigating officer. This apart, he shall also furnish the details of the doctor and the hospital in USA to the respondent authorities.

11. It is made clear that this order shall, in no manner, be treated as a recommendation for grant of VISA to petitioner No. 2. Further, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take action against petitioner No. 2 in the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions.

12. List this case after four weeks before the bench having the roster.