1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2009 Nipa Hemal Rajpopat ) Age 39 years, Occu: Housewife, ) having residing of Alhamas Tiles Plaster ) Co., P.O. Box No.72908, Sharjah, UAE ) presently at R/o. 10, Kahanashihs, ) 246, HingwalaLane, Ghatkopar (E), ) Mumbai-400 077. ).. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India ) (Ministry of External Affairs) ) through Central Government ) Advocate, having his office at ) Aayakar Bhavan, (Annex Building) ) 2nd floor, New Marine Lines, ) Mumbai 400 020. ) 2. The Special Recovery & Sales ) Officer, 212, Amir Industrial ) Estate,2nd Floor, Sun Mill Compound,) Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ) 3. Bureau of Immigrations ) C.S.T. Airport. ) 4. The Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank ) Ltd., 212, Amir Indl. Estate, Sun Mill ) Compound, Lower Parel, ) Mumbai 400 013. ).. Respndents Ms. Jayashri Manjrekar i/b. Ms. Renuka Laxmeshwar, Advocate, for the 2 petitioner. Mr. Ashok Varma, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. Prasad Das i/b. Goenka Law Associates, Advocates, for respondent No.2. Mr. J.S.Saluja, AGP, for the State. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 22nd February, 2010. JUDGMENT: (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the learned Counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal immediately. 2. Respondent No.4 is a Co-operative Bank. M/s.Lodestar International Inc. and its Director, Hemal Bhupendra Rajpopat. had taken some loan and cash credit facility from the said Bank. According to the Bank, the present petitioner, who is the wife of Hemal, and some other persons had guaranteed repayment of the said loan. On application of respondent No.4, Recovery Certificate was issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against M/s. Lodestar International Inc. and 5 others, including the present petitioner. The respondent No.2 is the Special Recovery & Sales Officer for the said Co-op. Bank. During the recovery proceedings, certain properties of the said Company were attached. Part of the amount was recovered by disposal of the property and some 3 property is yet to be proceeded with. According to respondent No.2, that property is not sufficient to satisfy the claim of the respondent No.4. Therefore, Respondent No.2 issued lookout notice against the present petitioner and on the basis of that the respondent No.3, Bureau of Immigration refused permission to the petitioner to go abroad. According to the petitioner, she has been granted resident Visa by the Government of UAE and she is residing there. She came to Mumbai from UAE to visit her parents in June 2008. On 31.8.2008, when she was to return to UAE, the respondent No.3 did not allow her to travel to UAE and informed her that there were instructions from respondent No.2 for the sames. This action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is challenged in the present petition. 3. Perused the affidavits of the concerned parties. Admittedly, on the request of respondent No.2, the petitioner was stopped from travelling to UAE. The learned Counsel for the respondents could not point out any provisions of law under which the respondent no.2 – Special Recovery Officer of the Co-op. Bank could have issued any orders or request letter to the respondent No.3 to stop the petitioner from travelling abroad nor any provision of law is pointed out to show that respondent No.3 was bound to act upon the request made by the respondent No.2. It is now well-settled position of law that right to travel abroad is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India 4 and this right cannot be taken away without any authority of law. Merely because she is a guarantor of certain loan advanced by the respondent No.4, in recovery proceeding, she cannot be detained nor she can be prevented from travelling abroad by respondent No.4 or its Recovery Officer. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The lookout notice and the direction issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 are hereby quashed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed not to restrain the petitioner from leaving India. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)