ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 (Bureau of Immigration) in issuing and continuing a Look Out Circular (hereinafter referred to as ‘LOC’) against the petitioner on request of respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Passports Act, 1967.

2. Heard Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr. N. Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

3. For the sake of convenience and unless stated otherwise, wherever the term ‘petitioner’ is used it shall refer to the actual petitioner herein i.e., Haridass Ramesh, the company of which he is a managing director i.e., Nandini Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIPL’) and M/s Techtrans Construction KCPL JV in which he held 50% shareholding.

4. Facts of the case

i) The parties have raised various factual aspects relating to their contractual obligations and losses incurred by them. As the said facts are not germane to decide the issues involved in the present case, only the necessary facts are stated herein below.

ii) The petitioner being the managing director of NIPL availed loan in the form of various credit facilities from respondent No.3 to execute projects in foreign countries. Between 2010-13, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a German company i.e., M/s Desa Techno-Export Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Desatec’) to supply equipment for installation of a distillation plant in Turkey for a total contract value of Euro 8.8 million.

iii) The petitioner availed various forms of credit facilities including foreign bill discounting and export packing credit to the tune of Rs. 88 crores from respondent No.3 herein. Further, the petitioner had drawn a bill of exchange for the entire contract amount of Euro 8.8 million directly payable to respondent No.3.

iv) The petitioner alleges that respondent No.3 being the beneficiary under the bill of exchange failed to receive the amounts from M/s Desatec under the German law and caused wrongful loss to the petitioner.

v) On the other hand, respondent No.3 herein after extending the said credit facilities, alleged that the petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan and declared NIPL as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.03.2014.

vi) Further, alleging fraud and misappropriation of the sanctioned credit, respondent No.3 filed O.A. No.1475 of 2017 before the DRT for recovery of Rs. 80,99,23,517.27/-.

vii) In the said O.A. No.1475 of 2017, the petitioner herein filed a counter claim of Rs. 101,52,35,148/- alleging that wrongful loss was caused to him due to the inaction of respondent No.3. As in the present writ petition, the petitioner herein in O.A. No.1475 of 2017 raised similar contentions that the alleged default committed by him was on account of defective services and non-cooperation by respondent No.3.

viii) Subsequently, respondent No.3 herein issued a possession notice dated 29.09.2015 against the petitioner herein under SARFAESI and the same was challenged before the DRT vide S.A. No.441 of 2017. The DRT dismissed the said application vide order dated 08.04.2019. The said order was challenged before this Court vide W.P. No.11465 of 2019 and the same was decided granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRAT.

ix) The petitioner also states that he entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s Technic Construction Co. an Iranian company. The joint venture was under the name of M/s Techtrans Construction KCPL JV (hereinafter referred to as ‘TC KCPL JV’). TC KCPL JV entered into a sub-contract with M/s Reliance Utility Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘RUEPL’) to lay road from Trichy t