JUDGMENT : When this matter was called today, Smt. Mini Gopinath – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the issues in this case are already covered by an interim order, dated 05.05.2022, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7733/2022. She pointed that, as is evident from the said interim order, the Bank has been directed to expunge remarks/endorsements/entries in the records/passport of a person like the petitioner, so as to enable him to travel abroad; but after obtaining an undertaking that he/she will not dispose of their assets, if any. She then showed me that the respondent therein had been directed to keep the Bureau of Immigration informed of his/her dates of departure and entry into India. 2. I must say that the afore submissions of Smt. Mini Gopinath holds great force because, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter, it would not be proper for the Banks to act contrary to its interim orders. 3. In the afore circumstances, I am left without doubt that the 4th respondent -Bank, is also expected to act in terms of the afore interim order. 4. Sri. Deepak Joy – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent -UCO Bank, submitted that, however, in this case there is a difference in the factual circumstances involved, because his client has invoked the powers vested on them, through the Circular issued by the Department of Financial Service, dated 22.11.2018. He pointed out that, as per the Circular, the Government of India has authorised the heads of Public Sector Banks to issue request for opening of Look Out Circulars (LOC) against ‘fraudsters, persons who wish to take loans and wilfuly default’ or ‘launder money and then escape to foreign jurisdiction to avoid paying back’ (sic). He argued that the petitioner in this case would fall under one of the afore categories. 5. However, Sri. Peer Mohamed Khan V.K. – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the afore assertion of the respondent-Bank is extremely mischievous because, not even a notice declaring his client as a willful defaulter has been issued by them until today; nor is there any declaration by any Court of law or Authority until date that he is either a ‘fraudster’ or ‘atempting to escape to foreign jurisdiction to avoid paying back’ (sic). He argued that, therefore, the interim order issued by the Honourable Supreme Court would apply to the case of his client fully. 6. In fact, Smt. Mini Gopinath – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that, even going by the aforementioned Circular, the Banks have been given power only to issue requests for opening LOC on very specified conditions. She submitted that this does not mean that they can indiscriminately use that power and seek issuance of Circulars against anyone of their choice. She submitted that unless the criteria mentioned in the said Circular are fully attracted, the requisition for LOC would become untenable. 7. I have examined the afore circular, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.R4(c) along with the counter affidavit of the Bank. It is inevitable therefrom that, even if the heads of the Banks have any power to seek opening of Look Out Circulars (LOC), it can only be to ensure that either “faudsters”, or “persons who wish to take loans and wilfuly default or persons ‘who escape to foreign jurisdiction to avoid paying back” can be brought under its ambit. 8. In the case at hand, Sri. Deepak Joy-learned counsel counsel for the Bank unequivocally admits that no proceedings for declaring the petitioner as a willful defaulter has been initiated or completed; and that he has not been declared to be a “fraudster” or “a person who likely to escape the foreign jurisdiction”. The words used in such circulars have to be construed very strictly and cannot be allowed to be used by the Banks at their fancy. 9. At this juncture, the afore submissions of Smt. Mini Gopinath assumes great significance and unless this Court is therefore, convinced that the petitioner would fall within the afore three categories as mentioned in the circular, the exercise of power by the Bank cannot be found to be legally incorrect. 10. The afore being so, I am certain that this Court will be justified in following the interim order learned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since circumstances noticed by it, while issuing it are not different from the facts presented in this case. 10. The afore being so, I am certain that this Court will be justified in following the interim order learned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since circumstances noticed by it, while issuing it are not different from the facts presented in this case. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondent to remove the remarks/endorsements/entries in the records/passport of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to enable him to travel abroad. However, this will be on specific condition that the petitioner will give an undertaking before the Bank that he will not deal with any of their assets, movable or immovable, without permission; and this shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also hereby directed to inform the Bureau of Immigration of the dates of his departure and entry into India; and should there be any violation of any of the afore conditions, the benefit of the judgment will be lost to him and the Bank will be at liberty to take necessary action, with the rigour of Look Out Notice being revived against him.