9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1080 - HC - FEMALocus standi of the Director of Enforcement to maintain the present appeal before this CourT - Unauthorised acquisition of foreign exchange - Tribunal after examining the records, found that the charge against the respondent herein was not proved by the prosecution and agreed with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly dismissed the Revision - Held that - In the case in hand, admittedly no notification for appointing the Director of Enforcement as the competent authority for enforcing the provisions of the Act and delegating specific functions under the Act to him, was produced before us. Though the learned standing counsel for the appellant undertook to produce one such notification, he failed to do so. That shows, no notification was issued by the Central Government. Thus, in the absence of any notification passed by the Central Government for specifically empowering the Director of Enforcement to enforce the provisions of the Act and delegating him with specific functions under the Act, the appellant herein i.e., Director of Enforcement cannot be treated as aggrieved party and has no locus standi to file this appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hence liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability and the substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. 2. Locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to file the appeal. Issue 1: Validity of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Union of India against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. The respondent was issued a show cause notice for possessing foreign exchange without permission, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Director, who acquitted the respondent. The Director of Enforcement filed a Revision Petition challenging this decision before the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the Revision after finding that the charge was not proved. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Revision without proper consideration of the provisions of FERA, 1973. The High Court examined the materials and found that the Director of Enforcement lacked the locus standi to file the appeal, as no notification was produced appointing the Director of Enforcement as the competent authority to enforce the Act. As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. Issue 2: Locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to file the appeal The legal objection raised in the case was against the locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to maintain the appeal before the High Court. The contention was that the Director of Enforcement was not the aggrieved party and therefore not authorized to file the appeal. Citing a Supreme Court decision and judgments of the High Courts, it was argued that only the Central Government could be considered an aggrieved party for filing an appeal in such matters. The absence of a notification empowering the Director of Enforcement to enforce the Act and delegate specific functions under the Act led to the conclusion that the Director lacked the necessary standing to file the appeal. The High Court held that without such notification, the Director of Enforcement could not be treated as an aggrieved party and thus had no locus standi to maintain the appeal. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Union of India against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. The judgment focused on the lack of locus standi of the Director of Enforcement to file the appeal due to the absence of a notification empowering the Director to enforce the provisions of the Act. This case underscores the importance of legal standing in filing appeals and the necessity of proper authorization in such matters.
|
