Bombay High Court
Rajesh Gaurishankar Poddar And Anr vs Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-OS:20881
1/3 917.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 35149 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3562 OF 2024
Rajesh G. Poddar and anr .. Applicants
In the matter of
Rajesh Poddar and ors .. Petitioners
Versus
Bureau of Immigration and ors .. Respondents
...
Mr.Dharam Jumani with Yohan Mehta and Ms.Sangali Bidwe for the applicant.
Mr.Dashrath A. Dube with Mr.Rupesh A. Dubey for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Amit Munde, SPP with Mr.Jai Vohra for CBI. Ms.Nidhi Shah with Mr.Ishan Gambhir, Ms.Aletea Fernandes i/b India Law LLP for respondent no.3. Bank.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ DATED : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C:-
1 IAL No. 35149/2025 is taken out in Writ Petition No. 3562/2024 seeking permission for the petitioners to travel to France between 18/11/2025 and 3/1/2026 for meeting their children as well as carrying out Consultancy Services activities, Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:16 ::: 2/3 917.doc as the petitioner no.1 is involved in investment business and finance of houses and this business compel him to take such tour.
2 In the present application, the Bureau of Immigration along with the Ministry of Home Affairs and State Bank of India which has issued a Look-Out Circular (LOC), are impleaded as respondents.
As far as the issuance of Lookout Circular by the Bank is concerned, which is already quashed by this Court by a detailed judgment in Viraj Chetan Shah Vs. Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr, 1 which has categorically held that the bank lack the power to issue LOC and this issue is now pending before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 17194/2024 and 17230/2024, in which a direction is issued that pending consideration of the Special Leave Petition, the private respondents/petitioners are at liberty to seek permission in the trial court in the event they wish to travel abroad.
It is in this background, the Application is filed. 3 Upon the SBI i.e. respondent no.3 being served, the learned counsel has marked her appearance and she would submit that there is also Lookout Circular issued by CBI and there is no mention of this aspect in the present application.
This contention is met by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant by stating that he has already filed two applications in two pending writ petitions in form of IA No. 1 2024 SCC Online Bom 1195 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:16 ::: 3/3 917.doc 21930/2025 in WP 25140/2024 and IA No. 21929/2025 in WP 24149/2024.
These Interim Applications are filed with the CBI being impleaded as respondent as the Lookout notice issued by CBI is the subject matter of the Writ Petitions.
Mr. Munde representing CBI has invited our attention to the orders dated 14/8/2025 passed in the two Writ Petitions and we have noted that the CBI would be seriously contesting the application, as it had already told the Court that the petitioners were the guarantors and with the investigation ongoing against the borrowers and guarantors, it may consume some considerable time.
4 In the situation that emerges before us, it appears to us that the petitioners who desire to travel abroad during the pendency of the petition raising a challenge to the Lookout Circular issued by the Bank as well as CBI, would be well advised if the applications are clubbed together and heard by the same Bench, as in the application before us is confined to the Lookout Circular by the Bank, and will definitely have impact upon the application which is filed in the wake of the Lookout Circular issued by the CBI.
It is well advised that appropriate steps be taken for clubbing the applications and placing them before the same Bench.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:16 :::