2007 (7) TMI 656 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in Adjudication Proceedings
2. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority
3. Violation of Natural Justice

Summary:

1. Delay in Adjudication Proceedings:
The petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the alleged contraventions under FERA pertained to 1991-92, with show cause notices issued between 1990-94. Hearings concluded in November 1997, but no decision was rendered until the proceedings were revived in July 2006. The petitioners argued that this delay caused serious detriment and prejudice, violating natural justice. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the delay was due to ongoing litigations in various courts, including the Supreme Court, and that the proceedings against the petitioners were interconnected with those against their employees. The Authority found no inactivity on the Department's part and rejected the contention that the delay caused prejudice, noting that the petitioners had been actively involved in the litigation process.

2. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:
The petitioners contended that the Adjudicating Authority was acting without jurisdiction, as they had complied with the requirements before the show cause notice was issued. The court clarified that the issue was not about the initial jurisdiction but whether subsequent events affected the Authority's jurisdiction. The court held that the mere fact that illegalities were not repeated did not negate the Authority's jurisdiction. The objection was not raised in the preliminary objections before the Adjudicating Authority and was thus rejected.

3. Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the long delay and unavailability of records and employees hampered their defense, violating natural justice. The court noted that the petitioners had been aware of the proceedings and had filed various affidavits, indicating that records were available. The contention that the proceedings were in violation of natural justice was rejected. The court emphasized that the delay was not due to any fault of the respondents and that the petitioners could not take advantage of their own wrongs, such as the unavailability of records.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petition, dismissing it and discharging the rule. The application for stay was rejected, and the petitioners were granted four weeks to file an additional reply.