Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"In a petition seeking cancellation of Look Out Circular, which is issued where there is flight risk of the petitioner, citizenship of the petitioner assumes relevancy," Punjab & Haryana High Court, in an order, held that a petitioner who obtains a favorable order by suppressing material facts—specifically regarding their foreign citizenship—is not entitled to discretionary relief.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed that the citizenship of an individual is a critical factor in cases involving Look Out Circulars (LOC), as such circulars are primarily issued to mitigate flight risk.

High Court Finds Petitioner Suppressed Vanuatu Citizenship

The matter arose from an application filed by Prerit Goel (Petitioner No. 3) seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom. While the original writ petition (CWP-12631-2023) seeking the quashing of an LOC had been allowed in January 2026, the Court discovered during the travel application proceedings that the petitioner had claimed to be an Indian citizen despite holding a passport from the Republic of Vanuatu since May 2023.

The petitioners had originally approached the High Court seeking the quashing of Look Out Circulars issued against them, which the Court allowed on January 20, 2026, following a Delhi High Court precedent. The matter was subsequently challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court. Pending the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek permission from the High Court if they wished to travel abroad.

The primary issue before the Court was whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his citizenship while obtaining the final order in the writ petition. The Court also had to determine whether such suppression disentitled the applicant from seeking permission to travel abroad under the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction.

Duty Of Disclosure Under Article 226

The High Court emphasized that the invocation of judicial review power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requires the highest degree of transparency. The Bench noted that the least expected of a petitioner approaching the Court is that no material fact is suppressed during the drafting and filing of the petition.

Relevancy Of Citizenship In LOC Matters

The Court observed that in any litigation involving the cancellation of an LOC, the citizenship of the petitioner is of utmost relevance. Since an LOC is a mechanism used by authorities to prevent individuals who pose a flight risk from leaving the country, the status of their citizenship directly impacts the assessment of that risk.

Petitioner Obtained Order Through Misrepresentation

The Court found that the petitioner had posed as a citizen of India despite holding a foreign passport. Since India does not recognize dual citizenship, the petitioner was not an Indian citizen at the time of filing the writ petition in May 2023. The Bench remarked that had this fact been known earlier, the possibility of the Court not allowing the original writ petition could not be ruled out.

"We are of the considered view that applicant/petitioner No.3 (Prerit Goel) by posing himself as a citizen of this country, which fact was not correct since he was citizen of Republic of Vanuatu, suppressed material fact."

Court Refrains From Recalling Main Order Due To Pendency In Apex Court

Despite holding that the final order dated January 20, 2026, was obtained through suppression, the Division Bench refrained from formally recalling the said order. The Bench noted that since the main judgment is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court in an SLP, it would be inappropriate to disturb the finality of that order at this stage.

Dismissal Of Travel Application With Costs

The Court dismissed the application for travel permission, holding that the petitioner's conduct disentitled him to any relief. To mark its disapproval of the suppression of facts, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, directed to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh.

"Accordingly, we hold that applicant/petitioner No.3 (Prerit Goel) had obtained the final order dated 20.01.2026 in CWP-12631-2023 by suppressing material fact."

The Court concluded by directing that a copy of its observations regarding the suppression of citizenship be sent to the Supreme Court to be placed on record in the pending Special Leave to Appeal.

Date of Decision: 25 May 2026