BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY Vs. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an Indian Citizen, is complaining to the Writ Court against the Look out Circulars (hereafter 'LoC') that have restrained him for four years (i.e since 5/2/2020) from traveling back to United Arab Emirates.

(2.) Succinctly, the challenge is structured on the following grounds: Lack of jurisdiction; absence of jurisdictional facts; violation of Fundamental Rights; abuse of power; breach of principles of natural justice; non-application of mind & arbitrariness; object of LoC is not the recovery of loan; the Respondent-Banks have secured a Mareva Injunction Order; orders/decrees have been secured by the banks; banks have not filed any criminal case against the Petitioner, in India or abroad; his presence in UAE is eminently required for fighting the legal battles there; Petitioner, who is in the late evening of life needs to be in the company of his family; his travel to UAE cannot be restrained for an indefinite period; he is ready & willing to come back, if so directed.

(3.) After service of notice, the Respondent-Bureau of Immigration has entered appearance through the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India; the Respondent-Banks are represented by their Panel Advocates. The Statement of Objections has been filed by the 3rd Respondent i.e., Bank of Baroda, resisting the Writ Petition principally contending that: Petition in its present form and substance is not maintainable; Petitioner is a chronic defaulter of huge loans;, without exhausting alternate remedy; much of the petition suffers from res judicata; Petitioner's presence is required in India to prevent loan recovery proceedings being rendered futile; culpable conduct in not disclosing all assets in terms of court order disentitles Petitioner to any discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction; his travel to UAE or any other foreign country is not required.