SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Rupen Patel - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondent
WP(C) No. 699 of 2024
Decided On : 20-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Rahil Raja, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

The judgment establishes the exceptional circumstances under which Look Out Circulars (LOC) can be issued, emphasizing the need for credible material and reasons to support the issuance of an LOC.

Headnote:

Look Out Circular - Quashing of LOC - J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, J&K RPC - Section 10A and 10B of the Passports Act, Office Memoranda dated 27.10.2010, 05.12.2017, 22.02.2021 - The judgment discusses the legal framework and guidelines for issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) and emphasizes the exceptional circumstances under which LOC can be issued, including when the departure of a person from India is detrimental to the economic interests or larger public interest. The court quashes the LOC against the petitioner and imposes conditions for his travel abroad.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Chairman and Managing Director of Patel Engineering Company Limited, seeks to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him in connection with an FIR for offenses under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and J&K RPC. The petitioner's company was accused in the FIR related to the allocation of tenders for a hydroelectric project. The petitioner cooperated with the investigating agency and challenged the LOC on the grounds of lack of specific allegations against him and his strong ties to the country.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashes the LOC against the petitioner, citing his cooperation with the investigating agency and the absence of evidence showing his evasion of the process. The court imposes conditions for the petitioner's travel abroad to address the concerns of the investigating agency.

Issues: The issues revolve around the validity of the LOC issued against the petitioner, the legal framework for issuance of LOCs, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigating agency.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that LOCs can only be issued in exceptional circumstances, such as when the departure of a person from India is detrimental to the economic interests or larger public interest. The court also highlights the need for credible material and reasons to support the issuance of an LOC.

Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the LOC against the petitioner is quashed. The court imposes conditions for the petitioner's travel abroad to address the concerns of the investigating agency.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium instant writ petition, has claimed certain reliefs, which are reproduced as under:

    “a. That a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondents directing them to produce the record of the Look Out Circular which has been issued against the petitioner but till date has not been served upon the petitioner.

b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Look out Circular issued against the petitioner by issuing writ of certiorari.”

2. As per the case of the petitioner, an FIR bearing No. RC0042022A0005 dated 20.04.2022 for offences under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of J&K RPC stands registered with respondent No. 2-Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI),. The subject matter of said FIR is the allocation of tenders in respect of construction of Kiro Hydroelectric Project in District Kishtwar. The petitioner, who happens to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Patel Engineering Company Limited is not an accused nominated in the said FIR but the company has been nominated as an accused in the FIR. According to the petitioner, M/s Patel Engineering was found lowest bidder pursuant to the bids invited for the aforesaid project and on 24.02.2020, letter of appointment was issued in favour of the company, whereafter, a contract was executed between the parties on 15.05.2021. The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 4287.59 crores and the petitioner-company was awarded contract regarding civil works at the cost of Rs. 2240.27 crores.

3. Pursuant to letter dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered in which it has been alleged that in the award of civil work package of Kiro Hydroelectric Project guidelines regarding e-tendering were not followed though a decision was taken in the 47th Board Meeting of Chenab Valley Power Projects Pvt. Ltd for retender through e-tendering with reverse auction after cancellation of ongoing tender process. It is also alleged in the FIR that the tender has been finally awarded to the petitioner-company. Accordingly, a regular case has been registered against Sh. Naveen Kumar Choudhary, the then Chairman, Chenab Valley Power Project Ltd(CVPPPL), Sh. M. S. Babu, the then M. D. CVPPPL, Sh. M. K. Mittal, the then Director CVPPPL, Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra, the then Director, CVPPPL and M/s Patel Engineering Company Limited.

4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that during the course of investigation of the case, search was conducted at head office of the M/s Patel Engineering Company Ltd on 21st of April, 2022 and on 6th July, 2021, search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner and other executives of the company. It has also been submitted that notices under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. were issued on 07.07.2022 by respondent No. 2 in the name of petitioner and Kavita Shirvaikar, Director to remain present for investigation in Jammu on 8th and 9th July, 2022. It has also been further submitted that another notice dated 28.12.2022 was issued by respondent No. 2 in the name of the petitioner and he was directed to depute officers named in the said notice to attend the investigation.

5. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that he along with other executives, who were summoned by respondent No. 2, visited the office of respondent No. 2 and cooperated with the investigation. They also provided the necessary documents as were sought by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has given the details of the visits made by him and the officers of company in the office of respondent No. 2, the Investigating Agency, the same are reproduced as under:

S. No.

Name

Date(s) of visit

1.

Rupen Patel (petitioner)

08.07.2022 to 15.07.2022

2.

Sunil Sapre

02.01.2023 to 05.01.2023

3.

Suresh Wagh

03.01.2023 to 06.01.2023

4.

Reshi Sharma

16.01.2024 to 18.01.2024

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top