2023 (4) TMI 830 - HC - FEMA

FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999) case pending since 2020-21 pursuant to the blocking of the petitioner's two bank - Seeking Defreezing of accounts blocked by the bank since the year 2020 - HELD THAT - We find that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking, in effect, the same relief that was sought in the previous writ petition but, it is clothed in representations which is a masquerade. A second writ petition for the same cause of action is anyway not maintainable. No liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. In the present petition we also find that relevant facts have been concealed by the petitioner inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any details of proceedings and the stage at which they are pending before the authorities concerned. For the reasons aforesaid and given the observations in the previous judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed by this Court 2021 (5) TMI 1061 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be payable by the petitioner within one month.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to disclose relevant facts in the writ petition.
2. Seeking similar relief through a second writ petition.
3. Concealment of relevant facts by the petitioner.
4. Imposition of costs on the petitioner.

Issue 1: Failure to disclose relevant facts in the writ petition:
The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition seeking quashment of a communication and direction to de-freeze the account. However, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to disclose crucial information regarding the forgery of a passport and initiation of an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, which were the reasons for the account freeze. The court noted that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and concealed essential facts, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Issue 2: Seeking similar relief through a second writ petition:
In the present writ petition, the petitioner essentially sought the same relief as in the previous petition but disguised it as representations. The court observed that filing a second writ petition for the same cause of action was not maintainable. Additionally, the petitioner was not granted liberty to file a fresh petition, and relevant details of the proceedings pending before the authorities were not provided by the petitioner or their counsel.

Issue 3: Concealment of relevant facts by the petitioner:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed pertinent details in the current petition, similar to the previous instance. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not highlight the stage or details of the proceedings before the concerned authorities. This lack of transparency and concealment of relevant facts further contributed to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 4: Imposition of costs on the petitioner:
Due to the failure to disclose crucial information, seeking similar relief through a second petition, and concealing relevant facts, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay the cost within one month, and failure to do so would result in the recovery of the amount as a fine. The prescribed cost was to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad High Court. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure of facts when filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the court's observations, and the reasons leading to the dismissal of the writ petition along with the imposition of costs on the petitioner.