1. Rule. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent no.1-Union of India and Mrs.Maravarman, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent no.3. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Office Memorandum No.25016/10/2017-Imm(Pt.) dated 22nd February 2021.
3. The present petition is filed against the respondent no.3 Bank of Baroda, respondent no.4-Union Bank of India and respondent no.5-Punjab National Bank who on the basis of the above Office Memorandum have issued Looked Out Circular against the petitioner. Respondent no.3 has filed its appearance. Insofar as respondent nos.4 & 5 are concerned, although they have been served and affidavit of service has been filed, they have not filed their appearance. However, since the issue is concluded by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench, we propose to dispose of the present petition.
4. We find that the issue of validity of the impugned Office Memorandum was the subject matter of adjudication before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court in Writ Petition No.719 of 2020 and connected matters in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah Vs. Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., decided on 23rd April 2024 has quashed the said Office Memorandum. The said order in case of Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) has been followed by another the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.13683 of 2021 and has passed the following order :-
“2. We find that the issue raised in the above Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah Vs. Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr
3. In these circumstances, the Petition partly succeeds and the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner at the instance of UCO Bank is hereby quashed and set aside.
4. We may clarify that the relief seeking compensation in terms of prayer clause (c) is hereby rejected.
5. The Bureau of Immigration will ignore and not act upon any LOC issued by UCO Bank against the present Petitioner. All databases will be updated accordingly. We direct the Bureau of Immigration or the Ministry of Home Affairs to do the needful in this regard.
6. We, however, clarify that this order will not and does not affect any existing restraint order issued by a competent authority, court, tribunal or investigative or enforcement agency, or an enforcement of any order of a court. Where any court or tribunal has issued a restraint order (even at the instance of a public sector bank), that order will continue to operate and the invalidation of the present LOC cannot and will not affect such orders.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
8. In view of disposal of the above Writ Petition, any Interim Applications filed therein, do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly.”
5. The Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 3 fairly agreed that the Co-ordinate Benches have been passing similar orders on the said issue following the order in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) and the same order be followed in the present case.
6. In view of the above, the following directions issued in Writ Petition (L) No.13683 of 2021 which is reproduced above, the impugned Office Memorandum No.25016/10/2017-Imm(Pt.) dated 22nd February 2021 is quashed and set aside.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule accordingly. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
