2022 (7) TMI 302 - SCH - FEMA

Amounts released despite the stay order - on query ASG accepts this - HELD THAT - Prima facie this is contempt of the orders of this Court. On our asking the query as to which of the Officer(s) to whom the contempt has to be issued, learned senior counsel states that the amount will be released within 3 days and that this Court may hold its order on issuance of notice of contempt. We take this stand of the learned ASG on record. Insofar as the constitution of the Tribunal is concerned, the affidavit states that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was appointed in terms of Order dated 26.10.2001. The process thereafter is taking place. It is pointed out to us that the Chairman demitted office on 21.9.2019 being a retired judge of the High Court and thereafter a Single Member Tribunal doing only interim proceeding work and he too demitted office sometime in March-April, 2021. Even the last Chairman was on extension. We are of the view that the status report does not reflect a complete picture and we would like to know the details as to what steps were taken starting from at least six months prior to the Chairman demitting office on 21.9.2019 to fill up that post right upto the department order dated 26.10.2021 with supporting documents.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of court for not releasing amounts despite a stay order.
2. Constitution of the Tribunal and appointment process.
3. Lack of clarity in the status report regarding the Tribunal's functioning.
4. Consideration of passing an order for automatic stay on filing appeals due to Tribunal's absence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of contempt of court for not releasing amounts despite a stay order. The petitioner's senior counsel highlighted the non-compliance with the court's order. The ASG accepted the lapse, acknowledging it as prima facie contempt. The court directed the release of the amounts within three days to avoid contempt proceedings. The ASG's assurance led the court to withhold the contempt notice temporarily.

2. The judgment delves into the matter of the Tribunal's constitution and the appointment process. It was noted that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was appointed in accordance with a specific order. However, concerns were raised about the vacancies in the Tribunal's leadership positions. The court sought detailed information on the steps taken to fill the vacant post of the Chairman, dating back to six months before the previous Chairman's term ended, up to the recent departmental order.

3. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the status report's lack of clarity regarding the Tribunal's functioning. It highlighted the incomplete picture presented and requested comprehensive details, supported by documents, outlining the actions taken from the period preceding the Chairman's departure in September 2019 until the recent departmental order in October 2021. This scrutiny aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the Tribunal's operational continuity.

4. Additionally, the judgment deferred the decision on a broader issue concerning the automatic stay on filing appeals due to the Tribunal's absence. The court pondered whether imposing an automatic stay would alleviate the burden on litigants who often seek interim relief from the High Court due to the Tribunal's unavailability. The matter was scheduled for further consideration on a specified date to deliberate on the feasibility and implications of such an order.