Suspension of Lookout Circular upheld as justified for business travel; no FIR against petitioner establishes no criminal intent.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM. No. 2612/2022

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Suspend the operation of Impugned LOC issued by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner for a further period six weeks from 21.01.2022 to 04.03.2022;

b) Pass any other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of this case."

2. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Srijan Sinha appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Lookout Circular (`LOC', for short) issued by Deputy Director Bureau of Immigration of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The petitioner/ applicant is currently serving as a Director in three Companies namely, M/s. Si2 Microsystems Pvt. Ltd., M/s. IZMO Ltd. (a public listed Company) and M/s. Hughes Precision Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. These aforementioned companies are engaged in developing and producing space and defence-related hardware and software for ISRO, Indian Army, Indian Air Force as well as International Clients in the United States of America, Russia, Singapore, Israel, etc. These companies are registered as Export Oriented Units. According to him, a similar application was filed by the petitioner before this Court being CM No.32943/2021. The said application was decided on November 18, 2021, whereby the Court has suspended LOC for a period of four weeks and permitted the petitioner to travel to Russia, subject to several conditions. According to him, the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions and has given security of immovable property worth more than Rs.5 crores bearing No. B-4/138, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 of his Mama Ji, Shri Vijay Gupta. The original title deeds of the property have been deposited in this Court and are still with the Registry of this Court.

3. He submitted that upon verification and on the satisfaction with respect to the fulfilment of the conditions imposed in the order dated November 18, 2021, the petitioner/applicant was allowed to travel.

4. He also highlighted paragraph 6 of the order dated November 18, 2021, wherein this Court has made it clear that if in case the petitioner seeks to travel abroad in future it would be open for him to move an appropriate application before this Court, which would be considered in accordance with the law.

5. He stated, the need to travel is not for a personal reason but rather in a commercially sensitive matter. The companies where the petitioner /applicant is a Director are engaged in the field of export of defence products, both hardware and software to countries including the United States of America, Russia and other countries in Africa and, therefore, the dates and the reasons for travelling abroad are the following:

6. He has drawn my attention to the documents annexed at Annexure A-4