2010 (1) TMI 1313 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show-cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Allegations of neglect under Section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulatory Act, 1973.
3. Delay in adjudicatory proceedings.
4. Interim orders and their implications.
5. Decision on whether to proceed with show-cause notice.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulatory Act, 1973. The petitioners contended that the notice lacked essential particulars and was issued without proper application of mind. The petition was admitted, and the operation of the notice was stayed. Subsequently, interim orders were passed, allowing the proceedings to continue but prohibiting the final adjudication without court's leave. However, over a span of 15 years, the respondents failed to progress beyond the show-cause stage, despite a subsequent development where the respondents themselves abandoned allegations of connivance and consent, focusing solely on neglect under Section 68(2) of the Act.

The court noted the inaction of the respondents and the prolonged delay in the proceedings. It emphasized that the interim orders were clear in their intent to complete the proceedings based on the show-cause notice. The petitioners had retired from their Bank during this period, further highlighting the extended duration of the case. The court deemed it necessary for the respondents to determine their interest in pursuing the matter, suggesting seeking further clarification if needed. It opined that given the circumstances, there appeared to be minimal grounds for prosecution based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the court directed the respondents to make a decision on proceeding with the show-cause notice within two months. If pursued, the proceedings were to be concluded within three months, focusing solely on the aspect of neglect. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious closure of the proceedings and expected cooperation from all parties involved. The petition was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs, and instructions were given for the delivery of the judgment to both parties.