JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The petitioners initially filed the writ petition against the action taken by the Immigration Authority preventing the petitioners from travelling to the United Kingdom. An order was passed on 30.9.2022 directing the petitioners to add Indian Overseas Bank as a party respondent as the Court was informed that the petitioners had been prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom by reason of a Look Out Circular on the basis of a request made by the Indian Overseas Bank. The Indian Overseas Bank was thereafter, added as the respondent no. 8. The Vacation Bench passed an order on 18.10.2022 permitting the second Petitioner to travel to the U.K. on account of the 2nd petitioner’s son pursuing his studies there. The petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition for challenging the Look Out Circular issued by the Indian Overseas Bank and sought for quashing of the same. By an order dated 28.02.2023, the petitioners were permitted to challenge the Look Out Circular issued at the instance of the Indian Overseas Bank/ respondent no. 8. Affidavits are complete in the amendment application.

2. The issue for adjudication is whether the Look Out Circular can continue to prevent the petitioners from travelling outside India or should be quashed on the facts which have been brought to the notice of the Court.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is a Director of Jain Infra Private Limited and Prakash Vanijya Private Limited; the petitioner no. 2 is an erstwhile Director of Jain Infra and Prakash Vanijya. The material facts are as follows.

4. The petitioners had obtained loans for the expansion of businesses from various Banks. The leading Bank in the consortium of 11 Banks was the Central Bank of India. The petitioners have settled the claims of all the Banks except the respondent no. 8/Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) and IDBI Bank. The petitioners have also given a proposal to Andhra Bank and IDBI Bank for a One Time Settlement (OTS) which is presently under consideration. The claim of Andhra Bank (Union Bank of India) is Rs. 12.5 crores out of which the petitioners have already paid Rs. 2.44 crores and have also paid Rs. 4.88 crores to IDBI Bank against the claim of Rs. 31.95 crores.

5. The documents placed before the Court also show that the petitioners have paid Rs. 5.03 crores to the IOB and that IOB has further realized Rs. 86 lakhs by selling a property which was mortgaged to the consortium of Banks. Although, disputed, the balance OTS amount shown in the books of the respondent no. 8 as on 18.08.2020 was Rs. 18.40 crores. The documents filed by the respondent no. 8 also disclose that. The total value of immovable securities given by the petitioners to the respondent no. 8 is Rs. 5.45 crores. The outstanding amount of Rs. 5,07,07,38,897.67/- shown by the IOB/respondent no. 8 as on 30.9.2022 is disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners rely on the letter dated 18.08.2020 which is part of the amended writ petition and shows the balance OTS amount to be Rs. 18.40 crores.

6. The contentions of the respondents, namely, the Indian Overseas Bank and the Immigration Authority/Union of India are that the writ petition, as it was originally filed, cannot be amended to seek the quashing of the Look Out Circular and further that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings. The argument for the first is that the scope of the writ petition has been expanded beyond the permissible limits of an amendment. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Immigration Authority submits that the CBI should be made a party respondent to the proceedings since cases are pending against the petitioners before the 3rd Special CBI Court, among other cases.

7. To answer to the above point first, the initial prayer in the writ petition was for permission to travel to the U.K. on account of the academic compulsions of