9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of the show-cause notice under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Authority of the Special Director to issue the notice - Adjudicating officer's authority to sign the notice - Admission of the writ petition based on previous similar cases Analysis: The judgment in question pertains to a writ petition seeking to challenge a show-cause notice issued under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, regarding the confiscation of foreign currencies seized from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Special Director who lacked the authority to do so under the Act. The court referenced a previous judgment by Kanakaraj J. which held that the Special Director was indeed empowered to issue such notices, as per a specific notification authorizing their role in enforcement under the Act. Regarding the contention that the Special Director did not sign the notice as the adjudicating officer, the court rejected this argument. It clarified that the Special Director, as an officer empowered to adjudicate cases under section 50 of the Act, could issue the show-cause notice in their capacity as an adjudicating officer. The court emphasized that the term "Adjudicating Officer" was defined under the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974, supporting the Special Director's authority in this matter. The petitioner also raised the issue of a similar writ petition being admitted and interim orders granted by the court on the same points. However, the court noted that the previous writ petition had been admitted before a final order that contradicted the petitioner's arguments. The court highlighted that the mere admission of a similar petition did not necessitate the admission of the present petition. Consequently, the court found no grounds for admitting the writ petition and dismissed it. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of responding to show-cause notices, citing a Supreme Court observation that government servants must present their case before the concerned authority when such notices are issued. The court stressed that interference by the court at an early stage, before the government servant has shown cause, would be premature. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition as it was filed before the petitioner had responded to the show-cause notice, in line with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the Special Director had the authority to issue the show-cause notice, and the petition was premature as it was filed before the petitioner had shown cause in response to the notice.
|
