2022 (8) TMI 64 - HC - FEMA

Offence under FEMA - cash money which was seized from the residence the husband of the petitioner No.1 and two other petitioners, who are the daughters, belonged to the petitioners - noticees referred therein were asked to give response to the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 16 read with Section 13 of FEMA, 1999 should not be held against them - HELD THAT - Writ Court in exercise of its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not investigate the ownership of such disputed amount of cash money seized from the possession of one of the noticees at Kolkata in course of search and seizure in question while petitioners are claiming the same as their own money. It is well settled principle of law that High Court in exercise of its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not investigate and adjudicate the title or ownership of any disputed immovable or movable properties and declare the ownership of the same in favour of one party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the parties and in view of the fact that this Writ Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned show-cause notice and prayed for quashing of the same are by none of the noticees and noticees have not challenged the same which has been issued by the Enforcement Authority at Jaipur in Rajasthan and none of the noticees have filed this Writ Petition challenging the impugned adjudication proceedings in question arising out of the impugned search and seizure proceedings out of which impugned adjudication proceedings are pending at Chandigarh and in view of the fact that the highly disputed question of ownership of the seized cash amount in question is involved which is a part of the said pending adjudication proceeding at Chandigarh which the petitioners want release by the order of this writ court, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice and complaint, ownership of seized cash, territorial jurisdiction, maintainability of writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice and complaint issued by the Enforcement Directorate against third parties. The notice required response within 30 days under FEMA, 1999. Cash was found during a search at a noticee's residence, claimed by petitioners. The petitioners sought to quash the notice, claiming the seized cash belonged to them. The respondents opposed the petition on merits and territorial jurisdiction grounds, stating the impugned actions were outside the court's jurisdiction. The court noted the disputed ownership of the cash and declined to investigate it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court emphasized that it should not adjudicate disputed property ownership under its writ jurisdiction. The court considered the facts, submissions, and the absence of challenges from the noticees in the petition. Since the noticees did not challenge the impugned actions, the court dismissed the petition as the ownership issue was part of pending adjudication proceedings at Chandigarh. The court declined to entertain the petition seeking release of the seized cash through its order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of not investigating disputed ownership under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The court's decision was based on the lack of challenges from the noticees, the pending adjudication proceedings, and the disputed ownership of the seized cash. The court's ruling highlighted the limitations of its jurisdiction in such matters and the need to respect ongoing legal processes.