2018 (10) TMI 39 - HC - FEMA

Jurisdiction of concerned authorities - Held that - Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are located in Bangalore and there is a possibility that issue has been examined by the concerned authorities having jurisdiction in respect of Banglore. He, nonetheless, states that the averments made in the petition would be considered by respondent no.1 and if any inquiry or investigation is warranted, steps in this regard would be taken by the concerned authorities. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition, the same is, accordingly, disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to initiate an inquiry against respondents for violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition requesting a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. 1 to initiate an inquiry against Respondent nos. 2 and 3 for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The petitioner claimed that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had contravened certain provisions of FEMA and had already made a representation to respondent no.1 in this regard.

The learned counsel for respondent no.1 informed the court that respondents 2 and 3 were situated in Bangalore, suggesting that the matter might have been reviewed by the authorities with jurisdiction in Bangalore. However, he assured that the contentions raised in the petition would be evaluated by respondent no.1, and if deemed necessary, appropriate steps would be taken for any potential inquiry or investigation.

Consequently, the court concluded that no further orders were necessary in this case and disposed of the petition accordingly. The court explicitly stated that its decision did not signify an endorsement of the claims made in the petition nor did it mandate respondent no.1 to automatically initiate any investigation or inquiry as requested by the petitioner.