Facts
The Petitioners challenged Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against them at the instance of several Public Sector Banks and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Source reference: p. 1The CBI filed a reply indicating that a charge-sheet had been filed only against Petitioner No. 2, and no LOC had been opened against Petitioner No. 1
Source reference: para. 3The Petitioners claimed full cooperation with the CBI investigation
Source reference: para. 3Issues
Whether Look Out Circulars issued at the request of the Chairman or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks are legally sustainable
Source reference: para. 2Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash an LOC issued by an investigating agency like the CBI when alternative remedies are available
Source reference: para. 3-4Law Applied
The Court relied on the guiding principles established in *Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.* (WP (C) 7850/2025) which held that LOCs issued at the instance of Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained under judicial review
Source reference: para. 1(iv), 2It further applied the precedent from *Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors.* (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699), which stipulates that a person aggrieved by an LOC must first join the investigation, surrender before the jurisdictional court, or approach the originating authority for withdrawal before seeking extraordinary remedies
Source reference: para. 1(vi), 3The court also referenced Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 regarding the narrow construction of exceptional powers to restrict travel
Source reference: para. 1(iii)Reasoning
The Court applied the *Vineet Gupta* ruling to determine that the LOCs originated by the banks lacked the necessary legal scrutiny and were, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside
Source reference: para. 2Regarding the LOC issued by the CBI, the Court reasoned that since the charge-sheet had already been filed against Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was not subject to an LOC, the appropriate procedure was for the aggrieved party to approach the trial court
Source reference: para. 3-4The Court emphasized that the writ court is not the exclusive mechanism for redressal, especially when an individual can demonstrate a change in circumstances or cooperation with the investigation to the jurisdictional court or the originating agency
Source reference: para. 1(vi), 4Holding
The Court held that the LOCs issued at the instance of the banks were unsustainable in law and formally set them aside
With respect to the CBI’s LOC, the Court disposed of the petition by granting Petitioner No. 2 liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional/trial court for cancellation or modification of the LOC based on the change of circumstances
Source reference: para. 4-5All pending applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: para. 5Original Court PDF
Neena Mittal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 11611/2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in