Rajesh Monga vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14519/2024

Date of Decision : 26.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJESH MONGA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr C S Gupta and Nilay Gupta and
Mr. Mukut, advocates


versus



UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC,
Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana Advs., UOI.
Mr. Amit Kasera, Adv. for R-2
(through v/c)
Mr. Arun Aggarwal with Mr.
Lovelesh Kukreja and Ms. Kajal
Ashok Mishra, Advocates for R-3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Page 1 of 5

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in nature of a Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ quashing the Look Out Circulars’ opened against the
petitioner by the Respondents; and

2. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ quashing the Look-Out-Circular’s opened against the
petitioner on the request made by:
(a) Respondent No. 2 Bank – India Bank (earlier Allahabad bank now
merged) against the petitioner;
(b) Respondent o. 3 Bank- Bank of Baroda against the petitioner.

3. Pass any further order or orders, direction or directions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

2. The petitioner is a Director and shareholder of Emmsons International
Limited, an Indian incorporated company engaged in international business
operations, including coal mining projects through its subsidiary Emmsons
Gulf DMCC, Dubai. It appears that petitioner has executed certain loan
documents and stood as guarantor in respect of credit facilities availed by
the borrower Company from a consortium of banks led by respondent no. 3
– Bank of Baroda, with respondent no. 2 – Indian Bank (formerly Allahabad
Bank).
3. The petitioner submits that respondent-Banks have requested
respondent no. 4 – Bureau of Immigration, under the Ministry of Home
Affairs, to open Look Out Circulars against him. However, the respondent-
Banks have neither provided any written communication nor disclosed the
details, reasons, or copies of the LOCs. The facts of the case would indicate
that there is no criminal investigation pending against the petitioner, neither
any FIR nor any charge-sheet has been filed till date. However, various
cases seem to be pending before different forums of recovery.
4. It appears in the instant case that the LOC has been opened at the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Page 2 of 5

instance of the Indian Bank.
5. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent who appears for the
Bank of Baroda submits that at his instance no LOC has been opened.
6. In view of aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the case of Vineet
1
Gupta vs. Union of India , wherein it has considered the power of the
financial institutions as to whether at their instance, a LOC can be opened.
In paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment, this Court has held as under:
“ 28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is
seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance,
continuance, and judicial review of LOC:
(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a
substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms
an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in
accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions
prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;
(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable
offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible
material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately
evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and
proximate likelihood of absconding;
(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the
Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed
and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where,
the proposed departure of subject poses a clear and grave threat to
the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or
economic interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger
public interest;
(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing
Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks,
would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus,
as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be
sustained and are liable to be quashed;
(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to

1
2026:DHC:1616
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Page 3 of 5

subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny,
balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the individual‟s
fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint
imposed is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in
statutory backing, or violative of the principles of fairness,
reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately, the burden lies
squarely upon the “originating agencies” to justify, the necessity,
proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such
action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the
continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically
reviewed. Where it is evident from the record that the subject has
cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of
law, and where no further interrogation or presence is
demonstrably required, the continued operation of an LOC would
amount to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal
liberty;
(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court
is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a
person against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer
Singh Salkan , a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the
first instance, required to join the investigation or surrender before
the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the
LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also approach the
authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and seek its
withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-application of mind.
An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may
also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court
having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an
appropriate application.”
7. In view thereof, there is no reason as to why the same directions
should not be issued. Accordingly, the impugned LOC, at the instance of
Indian Bank stands quashed.
8. The petitioner also undertakes to cooperate in all the recovery cases
wherever they are pending. The same undertaking has also been placed on
record.
9. The Indian Bank is also directed to send a consequential
communication to the concerned Authority(s).
10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition, along with pending
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Page 4 of 5

application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
aks/ss.




Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Page 5 of 5