Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + HC FEMA - 2013 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (1) TMI 392 - HC - FEMA


Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Validity of the revocation of the petitioner's passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Adequacy of the material and the basis for the impugned orders.
5. Proportionality and necessity of the revocation of the passport.
6. Relevance of the pending complaint under Section 16(3) of FEMA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the petitioner was a resident of Mumbai, and the impugned order by the RPO was passed in Mumbai. The petitioner countered that the CPO's order was passed in Delhi, which conferred jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court. The court held that while it could have employed the principle of forum non conveniens, it chose to hear the petition given the prolonged period the petitioner had been seeking a decision.

2. Validity of the Revocation of the Petitioner's Passport:
The core issue was whether the revocation of the petitioner's passport was valid and in accordance with the law. The court examined whether the necessary jurisdictional facts were present to enable the RPO to exercise the power of revocation and whether the RPO had exercised his powers in the interest of general public. The court concluded that the RPO had actionable material from the DOE, which provided the necessary jurisdictional facts to exercise power under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were breached as the proceedings were abruptly terminated, the show cause notices were issued by the APO while the impugned order was passed by the RPO, the material on which the show cause notice was issued was not supplied, and no opportunity was granted to cross-examine the officers of DOE. The court found that lengthy hearings were held, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to present his case. The court also noted that the RPO had the necessary power to pass the impugned order and that the petitioner was aware of the material forming the basis of the charge against him.

4. Adequacy of the Material and the Basis for the Impugned Orders:
The petitioner contended that the passport authorities had acted on the dictation of the DOE without independently assessing the allegations. The court held that the passport authority was within its rights to act on actionable material provided by other statutory authorities, such as the DOE. The court found no merit in the argument that the passport authorities had abdicated their power.

5. Proportionality and Necessity of the Revocation of the Passport:
The petitioner argued that the revocation of his passport was a draconian measure and that he had offered to cooperate with the DOE through alternative means such as video-link or a commissioner. The court held that the petitioner could not choose the manner in which he would tender evidence and that the statutory authorities should have the opportunity to confront the petitioner in a face-to-face examination. The court found that the revocation of the passport was justified given the circumstances.

6. Relevance of the Pending Complaint under Section 16(3) of FEMA:
The petitioner argued that the pending complaint under Section 16(3) of FEMA should have been factored in by the passport authorities. The court held that the petitioner's refusal to appear in response to the summons issued by the DOE led to the filing of the complaint. The court found that the pendency of the complaint did not influence the decision of the passport authorities.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court held that the revocation of the petitioner's passport was valid, in accordance with law, and in the interest of general public. The court also rejected the arguments regarding the breach of principles of natural justice and the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates