Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of review v. Union of India’. The quashing of the LOCs was made subject & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The present application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the order dated 25.05.2026 passed in CM-8060- CWP-2026 in/and CM-5629-CWP-2026 in CWP-12631-2023.

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of review-applicant has submitted that the applicant was petitioner No.3 in the main writ petition along with two other petitioners, which had been filed seeking quashing of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against them. The writ petition was allowed and LOCs were quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Sanjiv Berry, J.) was a member, vide judgment dated RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -2-

20.01.2026, while relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 12169/2021 titled ‘Manan Goel Vs. Union of India and others’. The quashing of the LOCs was made subject to furnishing of a specific undertaking by way of an affidavit, as directed by this Court.

#3. The respondent-Bank assailed the aforesaid judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10530/2026, wherein notice was issued on 06.04.2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that pending consideration of the SLP, the present applicant, who is a private respondent in the SLP, shall seek permission from the High Court in the event he wishes to travel abroad.

#4. Consequently, the present applicant filed an application (CM-5629-CWP-2026) seeking permission to travel abroad. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 25.05.2026, of which the present applicant is seeking review thereof.

#5. It is submitted that by the aforesaid order, the application seeking permission to travel abroad was dismissed with costs of 50,000/- ₹ on the ground that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the applicant had suppressed the material fact that he was in fact a citizen of Republic of Vanuatu. Whereas, the applicant had stated in the petition that he was a citizen of India having an Indian passport. Consequently, the application was dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts.

#6. He submitted that although the review-applicant had filed a separate affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for the inadvertent mistake, but the application seeking permission to travel abroad was nevertheless dismissed. He further submitted that the applicant is facing RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -3- difficulty as he is required to travel to the United Kingdom (U.K.), where he is a permanent resident and his visa for India expired upon the completion of the permitted period of 90 days. Owing to this difficulty, the present review application has been filed, praying that the order dated 25.05.2026 be reviewed accordingly.

#7. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who is appearing virtually, assisted by Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel counsel for Union of India opposed the application and submitted that no ground is available to the applicant for seeking review, as the scope of a review application is very limited.

#9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. The main writ petition bearing number CWP-12631-2023, was filed by the review-applicant, along with two other petitioners seeking quashing of LOCs issued against them.

#10. In Paras No.1 and 2 of the writ petition, it was specifically incorporated that the petitioners are citizens of India and the details of their passports were duly furnished. The particulars of the applicant's passport were mentioned at Serial No. 3 in Para No.2. For ready reference and convenience, Paras No.1 and 2 are reproduced as under:- “1. That, the Petitioner No. 1 namely is Ashok Kumar Goel aged about 68 years, is resident of House No. 91, Arjun Marg, DLF Phase – I, Sikanderpur Ghosi (68), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (the "Petitioner No 1"). The Petitioner No. 2 namely is Sudhir Goyel aged about 66 years, is resident of 105, Akash Neem Marg, DLF City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 (the "Petitioner No. 2"). The Petitioner No. 3 namely is Prerit Goel aged about 36 years is resident of 105, Akash Neem Marg, DLF City Phase-II Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 (the "Petitioner No. 3"). The Petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 (collectively referred to as the "Petitioners" as the context may require) are RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -4- citizens of India, residing in Gurgaon, State of Haryana and are therefore competent to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

#2. That, the Petitioners are aggrieved of the illegal, unlawful and wholly arbitrary exercise of power whereby the fundamental right of the Petitioners to travel abroad has been curtailed without even being granted any opportunity of hearing. The details of passport beign held by the petitioners are as follows:- SR. NO. Passport No. Issued on

#3. Z3721038 Z4979588 Z5309997 26/12/2016 10/12/2018 13/11/2019 Valid upto 25/12/2026 09/12/2028 12/11/2029

#11. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 20.01.2026, of which one of us (Sanjiv Berry, J.), was a member, allowed the writ petition, subject to furnishing of a specific undertaking by way of an affidavit. Para No.9 of the aforesaid order dated 20.01.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “9. As a consequent relying upon the judgment dated 14.11.2025 rendered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 12169/2021 titled as ‘Manan Goel Vs. Union of India & Ors’, the instant petition is hereby allowed, quashing the impugned Look Out Circulars (LOC) subject to the petitioner furnishing specific undertaking by way of an affidavit affirming as under:- (i) That they shall continue to cooperate in any investigation and appear before the investigating authorities, as and when required or directed, and render full cooperation in any ongoing proceeding(s) and investigation(s); and (ii) provide all material/documents requested from them by the investigating agencies, and as may be available within their power or possession.”

#12. The respondent-Bank assailed the aforesaid judgment by filing SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the Hon’ble RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -5- Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Deepak Agrawal, learned counsel, accept notice for the respondent(s)-caveator. Pending consideration of this Special Leave Petition on the interim stay, the private respondents/writ petitioners before the High Court shall seek permission from the High Court in the event they wish to travel abroad. It is needless to observe that if such an application is filed before the High Court in the disposed of writ petition(s), the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously. The pendency of this Special Leave Petition before this Court would not come in the way of the petitioners herein formulating a fresh Office Memorandum (OM), if found necessary. Tag with SLP(C) No(s).17194-17230/2024.”

#13. Consequently, the present applicant filed an application bearing CM-5629-CWP-2026 before this Court seeking permission to travel to U.K. In the said application, it was disclosed, in the very first paragraph, that the applicant was holding a passport of another country namely the Republic of Vanuatu, and the particulars of the said passport were also furnished. The aforesaid application was dismissed by observing that the applicant, at the time of filing of the main writ petition, had suppressed material facts by posing himself as a citizen of this country, which fact was not correct since he was a citizen of Republic of Vanuatu. It was also observed that in all probability, had this fact been disclosed to the Court at the relevant time, the possibility of the writ petition not having been allowed could not have been ruled out. It was categorically held in the order dated 25.05.2026, that the present applicant has obtained the final order by suppressing material facts. It was also noticed that since issue is now sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court refrains from disturbing the final order passed on RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -6-

20.01.2026 in the main petition. The relevant paras of the order dated

25.05.2026 are reproduced as under:- “5.1 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. In all probability, if this fact was known to this Court, then possibility of this Court not having allowed CWP-12631-2023 cannot be ruled out.

5.2 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.

#6. Since the issue is now sub judice before the Apex Court, we refrain from disturbing the final order passed on 20.01.2026 in CWP-12631-2023.

#7. However, in view of the aforesaid and applicant/petitioner No.3 (Prerit Goel) having obtained final order dated 20.01.2026 in CWP-12631- 2023 by suppressing material fact, CM-5629-CWP-2026 stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be deposited by applicant/petitioner No.3 (Prerit Goel) with Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of thirty days.”

#14. The present application seeks review of the order dated

25.05.2026, whereby the application of the applicant seeking permission to travel abroad was dismissed.

#15. The scope of review is very limited. The Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Rehearing of a matter is impermissible in law and review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. We are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. With regard to the scope of review, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC 515. RA-CW-320-2026 & CM-9892-CWP-2026 IN CM-5629-CWP-2026 IN CWP-12631-2023 -7-

#16. The argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the review- applicant that the applicant would face difficulty in case he is not permitted to travel to United Kingdom on account of the expiry of the permitted period of 90 days, in the view of this Court is not a ground for review of an order which has already been passed. We are unable to accept the argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the review-applicant. We do not find any merit in the present application.

#17. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. CM-9892-CWP-2026 In view of the dismissal of the review application seeking review of the order refusing permission to travel abroad, the present application, filed once again seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom (U.K.) for a period of 20 days, also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

06.07.2026 S.Sharma i) ii) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No