ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue directions to the respondents to place on record the Look Out Circular (for short ‘the LOC’) issued against him and further to quash and set aside the same and to restrain the respondents from interferring in his air travel. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3-Bank of Baroda issued a request on 24.09.2019 to the Dy. Director, Bureau of Immigration (BoI), for opening LOC issued against the petitioner in view of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 of Ministry of Home Affairs. On the said request the respondents issued the LOC dated 24.09.2019 but it was never communicated to the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that when the petitioner was flying out of India for business on 01.03.2020 he was off loaded at Jaipur by the Immigration Officials stating that a LOC has been issued against him by the Bank of Baroda and he cannot be permitted to fly out of India. Counsel further submitted that in-spite of asking for the LOC, it was never served upon the petitioner. He also stated that the loan availed by him beyond the boundaries of a Country cannot be recovered in another Country. Therefore, the act of issuing the LOC is illegal ab initio. Counsel further submitted that the LOC can be issued only against a person involved in a criminal case with cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code. Counsel referred Clause (H) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Counsel further submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the issuance of LOC against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 3288 of 2019 (Gaurav Tayal Vs. Bureau of Immigration & Ors.) as also the Judgment dated 17.08.2023 delivered by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 9841/2022 and CM Appls. 29064/2022, 30677/2023 (Mr. Nipun Singhal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4. Bureau of Immigration & Ors.) as also the Judgment dated 17.08.2023 delivered by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 9841/2022 and CM Appls. 29064/2022, 30677/2023 (Mr. Nipun Singhal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that apart from the persons involved in the criminal cases, the LOC can also be issued against the persons if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person/s is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic to sovereignty or security and /or economic interests of India and or that such departure would not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time. Counsel further submitted that in view of provisions of Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 21.02.2021, the LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bank of India from the originator itself. Counsel submitted that the petitioner promoted a Company by the name of Beven International Limited (“Borrower”) and in the year 2017, the Company through the petitioner approached the Bank of Baroda at Hong Kong for availing the credit facility for carrying on the business and the credit limit to the tune of UAD 1.500 million was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda, Hong Kong to the Borrower Company on 15.08.2017. Counsel further submitted that the Borrower failed to deposit the requisite amount with interest. Counsel further submitted that the Bank of Baroda, Hong Kong filed a bankruptcy petition against the petitioner in the High Court of Hong Kong and the High Court of Hong Kong vide order dated 11.07.2019 adjudged the petitioner bankrupt and and appointed the Official Receiver. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is conveniently trying to escape to avoid its liability, therefore, the Bank of Baroda was left with no option except to request for issuance of LOC against the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the LOC was issued at the behest of the respondent Bank. Counsel submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, the said LOC is effect and operation and there is no cogent ground with the petitioner to quash and set aside the same. Counsel submitted that the LOC was issued at the behest of the respondent Bank. Counsel submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, the said LOC is effect and operation and there is no cogent ground with the petitioner to quash and set aside the same. Counsel further submitted that if the petitioner is allowed to go Abroad, then there is possibility that he will not return back and will certainly adversely effect the economic interest of the India and also the larger public interest. Counsel submitted that the grounds of economic interest and the larger public interest for issuance of LOC have been incorporated in the Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2017 and the Office Memorandum dated 04.10.2018 speaks that the guidelines enable LOCs against persons who are fraudsters/ persons who wish to take loans, willfully default/ launder money and then escape to foreign jurisdictions, since such actions would not be in the economic interests of India or in the larger public interest. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court in Mannoj Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WPA No. 22748 of 2022) decided on June 09, 2023. 6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on the record. 7. During the course of arguments, on perusal of the impugned LOC dated 24.09.2019, when this Court found that the said LOC was to remain valid till 23.09.2020, the Court put a query to the counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that “Whether the said LOC was renewed or any new LOC was issued against the petitioner?”, counsel appearing for the respondent – Union of India sought time to seek instructions from the respondent authorities. On 17.10.2023 the counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India placed before this Court a letter dated 17.10.2023 issued by the Section Officer, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, stating that one LOC exists against the petitioner which has been issued at the behest of MD & CEO Bank of Baroda, no fresh LOC has been issued against him thereafter. The LOC continuation request was received from originator vide their letter dated 03.10.2020. The LOC continuation request was received from originator vide their letter dated 03.10.2020. It was also stated in the said letter that as per new MHA LOC guidelines dated 22.02.2021, the LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BOI from the originator itself and no LOC shall be deleted automatically. 8. The letter dated 17.10.2023 has been taken on record. On request of the respondent Bank, the LOC was issued by the concerned authority on 24.09.2019 with the specific mention that the LOC would remain valid till 23.09.2020. Taking into consideration the specific mention in the LOC that it will remain valid till 23.09.2020, when the respondents were asked that since the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 has already come to an end, under what circumstances they can restrain the petitioner from flying Abroad. The counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, which speaks as under:- “J. The LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BoI from the Originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted automatically. Originating Agency must keep reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on quarterly and annual basis and submit the proposals to delete the LOC, if any, immediately after such a review. The BOI should contact the LOC Originators through normal channels as well as through the online portal. In all cases where the person against whom LOC has been opened is no longer wanted by the Originating Agency or by Competent Court, the LOC deletion request must be conveyed to BoI immediately so that liberty of the individual is not jeopardized.” 9. Now the issue is that whether the LOC issued on 24.09.2019 for a period up to 23.09.2020 is still in effect and operation or not? Counsel appearing for the respondent -Union of India submitted that in view of Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, the LOC opened shall remain in force unless a deletion request is received and in the present case no any deletion request was ever received and therefore, the LOC issued on 24.09.2019 is in effect and operation. Counsel appearing for the respondent -Union of India submitted that in view of Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, the LOC opened shall remain in force unless a deletion request is received and in the present case no any deletion request was ever received and therefore, the LOC issued on 24.09.2019 is in effect and operation. In view of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India, the Court asked from the counsel appearing for the Union of India to place on record any LOC issued in regard to any person after new guidelines put in force vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 because the LOC issued against the petitioner was under the old guidelines and the period of said LOC has already come to an end prior to issuance of the new guidelines and in the new guidelines there is no any clause in regard to the LOCs issued prior to the issuance of new Office Memorandum. Copy of LOC issued in regard to one Mr. Bikram Singh Jajithia dated 21.12.2021 was placed before this Court by the counsel appearing for the petitioner with the clear mention that “This LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BOI from the originator itself.” Copy of the LOC dated 21.12.2021 was also taken on record. 10. The respondents are taking shelter of Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 where it has been mentioned that the LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received and no LOC shall be deleted automatically. In the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 it was specifically mentioned that it is valid upto 23.09.2020 and in the subsequent LOCs issued after the new Office Memorandum, the respondents specifically mentioned that the LOC will remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received. The argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 it has been specifically mentioned that opened LOC will remain in force till the request for deletion is received, does not convince this Court in regard to the LOCs issued prior to the new Office Memorandum issued on 26.02.2021 and more particularly in the case when the period of LOC has already come to an end prior to issuance of the said Office Memorandum. This Court would like to say that the word “opened” used for LOCs is in respect of the LOCs issued after the new Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2021 or at the most for the LOCs which were in force on the date of issuance of the said Office Memorandum but in the present case the LOC was issued on 24.09.2019 and its period had already come to an end on 23.09.2020. Therefore, the word “opened” used in Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 does not cover the case of the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019. 11. On consideration of the LOC dated 24.09.2019, the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 and the format of the LOC issued after the new Office Memorandum, this Court would not hesitate in holding that the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 is no more in effect and operation because neither there is any Saving Clause in the Office Memorandum in regard to the LOCs issued which has come to an end prior to issuance of the new Office Memorandum nor it was renewed at any point of time. This Court would also like to mention that a request for continuance /opening of LOC against the petitioner was sent by the Bank of Baroda vide letter dated 03.10.2020 to the Deputy Director of Bureau of Immigration but no any order of continuance or opening of fresh LOC was ordered against the petitioner. Making request for continuance / opening of LOC dated 03.10.2020 clearly speaks that the respondents were well aware of the fact that the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 has already come to an end. The judgments cited by the counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents are not relevant at this stage for the reason that they are in regard to deciding the issuance of LOC on its merits and demerits, whereas this Court has come to the conclusion that LOC dated 24.09.2019 is no more in force for which any adjudication is to be made on its merits. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court would like to hold that the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 is no more effect and operation after 23.09.2020 and therefore, no adjudication in regard to the merits and demerits of said LOC is required to be made at this stage. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court would like to hold that the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 is no more effect and operation after 23.09.2020 and therefore, no adjudication in regard to the merits and demerits of said LOC is required to be made at this stage. The respondents should not have retained the petitioner from flying Abroad after 23.09.2020 in view of the LOC issued against the petitioner on 24.09.2019 and thus any such action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. 13. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of as observed above. 14. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.