IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF :

PRIYANKA MITTAL
DAUGHTER OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR MITTAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF C-32, SECTOR 62,
NOIDA (U.P.) – 201 301

ALSO

DIRECTOR
M/S. KRBL LIMITED
____, SAKET,
NEW DELHI .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI – 110 003

2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
10-A, JAMNAGAR HOUSE
NEW DELHI – 110 011

3. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH IMMIGRATION BUREAU
EAST BLOCK 8, LEVEL 2,
SECTOR 1, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI .. RESPONDENTS

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DIRECTED
AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF LOOK OUT
CIRCULAR (LOC) AT THE INSTANCE OF
 THE RESPONDENT AS BEING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNWARRANTED
AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE
FACTS OF THE CASE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner is a citizen of India and is a Director in

KRBL Limited, which is a company engaged in ____. The

Petitioner is looking after sales and marketing in a capacity as

Director of the aforesaid Company.

2. That the Petitioner is not named as an Accused in any

Complaint/ FIR/ ECIR/ RC registered at the instance of the

Respondent or any other authority for that matter, till date.

3. That the Petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court due to the patently illegal

action of the Respondent/ Enforcement Directorate in seeking

the opening/ issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC for short),

thereby restraining the constitutional freedom and right of

travel of the Petitioner, without any warrant of law.

4. That in November, 2017 the Petitioner was summoned under

Section ___ of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act

(PMLA for short) and directed to appear before the Officers of

the Respondent on ______. The Petitioner duly appeared and

 cooperated in the inquiry/ investigation being conducted by the

Respondent on the said date.

5. That thereafter the Petitioner was directed to appear again on

_____, which direction was also duly complied by the

Petitioner.

On the said date the Petitioner was informed that the

Respondent is seeking issuance of LOC against her, so that she

cannot travel abroad, during the pendency of inquiry/

investigation against her.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner learnt for the first

time on _______ that she was being summoned in connection

with some defence deal, particularly with reference one

transaction pertaining to Dubai Office of KRBL Limited and

repeatedly has been called upon to provide statements of

accounts of the Company, as also the Dubai entity.

The Petitioner had at each stage apprised the Respondent that

she being a professional director dealing only with marketing

and sales, has no connection whatsoever to either the

transaction or the accounts as being sought, which in any case

 can be summoned through the Company Secretary of the

Company.

7. It is further pertinent to mention that the Petitioner has

completed her Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from

Harvard Business School in the United States of America and

had been employed in a professional capacity with _____.

The Petitioner has been working with KRBL Limited since

____ as a Director looking after sales and marketing only.

8. That as the Petitioner was required to travel for the purposes of

attending a YPO/ Harvard 2018, Presidents' Seminar between

13.01.2018 to 19.01.2018 and thereafter in the US and Canada

for the purpose of business development meetings, and in view

of the Respondent’s informing her about her opening of LOC,

the Petitioner filed an application before the concerned

Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) on _______ seeking

permission to travel abroad between 11.01.2018 to 05.02.2018.

It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner has earlier in 2012

and 13 attended the aforesaid seminar.

The Petitioner placed copies of her invitation to the course,

plane tickets, itinerary of travel along with the said application.

 True copy of the application dated 05.01.2018 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure __.

9. That the Respondents on 08.01.2018 have filed their reply

opposing the application filed by the Petitioner, wherein it is

averred by the Respondents that the investigations are

continuing against the Petitioner, however, she is not named as

an Accused nor has any complaint been filed against her.

It is pertinent to mention that after receipt of notice upon the

Application, the Respondent issued fresh summons to the

Petitioner directing her to appear on 09.01.2018, in compliance

of which the Petitioner duly appeared and was examined

between 11.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. The Petitioner was further

directed to appear again on 10.01.2018, on which date again the

Petitioner was examined between 11.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m.

10. That, however, despite the settled law on the subject,

particularly the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Nitin

Sandesara V/s. Enforcement Directorate, the Special Court by

its order dated 08.01.2018 dismissed the application filed by the

Petitioner.
 True copy of the order dated 08.01.2018 is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure ___.

11. That as such the Petitioner is constrained to approach this

Hon’ble Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the Look

Out Circular issued by the Immigration Authorities at the

instance of the Respondent on the following amongst other

grounds:

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE it is well settled, the right to travel abroad feely is

the integral part of right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and no person can be deprived of such

right without due process or authority of law.

B. BECAUSE opening/ issuance of a Look Out Circular is

governed by the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2006 as

interpreted by the Hon’ble Courts from time to time and an

LOC can only be opened if a person is named as an Accused in

respect of a cognizable offence in an FIR/ Complaint etc. or on

grounds of national security.

In the present case, the Petitioner is neither named as an

Accused nor is there any element of national security involved,

 insofar as the Petitioner is concerned so as to restrict her right

to travel.

C. BECAUSE a LOC cannot be issued/ opened solely with a view

to pressurize or intimidate a person into acceding to the illegal

demands of the Investigation Authorities, which are required to

carry out investigation and inquiry, independently and, fairly

without fear or favour.

The Petitioner is only being harassed since the Respondent

wants her to make false statements implicating other persons/

directors in M/s. KRBL Limited, whereas the Petitioner is fully

cooperating in the investigation whilst truthfully stating that she

has no knowledge of the transactions being investigated into by

the Respondent.

D. BECAUSE as has been held by this Hon’ble Court by its

judgment dated 11.08.2010 in the case of Sumer Singh Sankan

V/s. Assistant Director And Others – that recourse to LOC can

only be taken by an investigation agency in a cognizable

offence under the IPC or other penal laws, where the Accused

is deliberately evading arrest and/ or when there is likelihood of

Accused leaving the country to evade arrest/ trial.

 In the present case, the Petitioner is neither Accused of any

cognizable offence and nor is there any apprehension of the

Petitioner evading arrest. In fact, the Petitioner is duly

cooperating with the investigation/ inquiry and has appeared as

and when required and directed by the Respondent.

E. BECAUSE the issuance of LOC is governed by the guidelines

dated 27.10.2010 (annexed hereto and marked as Annexure

___), and in the present case the LOC issued by the Respondent

is in violation and derogation of the aforesaid guidelines itself.

No occasion or circumstance for issuance of LOC exists in the

present case, even as per the extant guidelines themselves.

F. BECAUSE the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India, who

is in no manner concerned with any violation of PMLA or any

other applicable laws and as such the restriction on her right to

travel is arbitrary, unsustainable and unwarranted in law.

12. That the Petitioner craves leave to add to, amend and

supplement the grounds raised at the stage of oral submissions.

13. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition

before this Hon’ble Court or any other High Court or before the
 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, seeking the same relief as

prayed for in the present petition.

14. That the present petition has been made bonafide and in the

interest of justice.

P R AY E R

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly

be pleased to:

a) call for the records and quash and set aside the Look Out

Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner, preventing her

travel to abroad;

b) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the

case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

PETITIONER

THROUGH:

VIRAJ R. DATAR
ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI
DATED: JANUARY __, 2018
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. NO. OF 2018

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF :

PRIYANKA MITTAL .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
& OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER FOR
AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the aforesaid Writ Petition directed

against the issuance of LOC by Respondent No. 3 at the

instance of Respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. That the detailed facts and grounds entitling the Petitioner for

grant of relief are set out in the accompanying Writ Petition and

are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to

avoid repetition. The same may be read as part and parcel

hereof.
3. That the Petitioner is required to travel between 13.01.2018 to

19.01.2018 to attend YPO/ Harvard 2018 Presidents’ Seminar

and thereafter within America and to Canada for the purpose of

business developments/ meetings.

4. That the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and damage if

the Petitioner is restrained from travelling abroad in view of the

LOC issued.

5. That the Petitioner has a good prima facie case and the balance

of convenience lies in her favour.

P R AY E R

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly

be pleased to:

a) temporarily suspend the LOC and permit the Petitioner to travel

to USA and Canada between 13.01.2018 and 05.02.2018 as per

itinerary filed in the present proceedings;

b) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the

case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT

THROUGH:

VIRAJ R. DATAR
ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI
DATED: JANUARY __, 2018
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF :

PRIYANKA MITTAL .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
& OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Priyanka Mittal, aged about 40 years, daughter of Shri Anil Kumar

Mittal, resident of C-32, Sector 62, NOIDA (U.P.) – 201 301, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above noted case and as such am

conversant with the facts of the case and am competent to swear

this affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

say that the same has been drafted under my instructions, and

the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.

3. That I have not filed any other similar petition before this

Hon’ble Court or any other High Court or before the Hon’ble

 Supreme Court of India, seeking the same relief as prayed for in

the present petition.

4. That the Annexures filed along with the Writ Petition are true

and correct copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this ___ day of January, 2018 that the

contents of paras 1 to 4 of my above Affidavit are true and correct to

my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. NO. OF 2018

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF :

PRIYANKA MITTAL .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
& OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Priyanka Mittal, aged about 40 years, daughter of Shri Anil Kumar

Mittal, resident of C-32, Sector 62, NOIDA (U.P.) – 201 301, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above noted case and as such am

conversant with the facts of the case and am competent to swear

this affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying

application under Section 151 CPC for stay and say that the

same has been drafted under my instructions, and the contents

thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

VERIFIED at NEW DELHI on this ___ day of January, 2018 that the

contents of paras 1 and 2 of my above Affidavit are true and correct to

my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT