9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, do not think that there is any scope for expanding Rule 4(3) to mean that the forming of the opinion as required in Rule 4(3) has to be reflected by an order in writing containing reasons. Be that as it may, the petitioner had allowed several things to pass, before he came up with the above writ petition. When the petitioner came up with the above writ petition, the stage of Rule 4(3) had already been passed. The enquiry had actually come, at the time when the petitioner moved this Court, to the stage of Rule 4(8). Therefore, it is not possible now to put the clock back or rewind the proceedings back to the stage of Rule 4(3). After all, the requirement of Rule 4(3) even if the interpretation given by the Division Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m proceeding with the adjudication is that under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, the adjudicating authority is liable to form an opinion and record the reasons for such opinion, before initiating the enquiry, after the issue of a show cause notice and the receipt of the reply. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court interpreted Rule 4(3), in Shachank Vyankatesh Manohar vs. Union of India, 2013 (5) ALL MR 551 to mean that after the issue of show cause notice and the receipt of objections, the adjudicating authority is required to apply his mind to the objections by recording his reasons for forming an opinion on the file. This decision was followed by a learned Judge of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of 2013. But the writ petition was dismissed on 30.08.2013. The petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.2034 of 2013. 8. Since there was no stay in the writ appeal, a fresh call notice was issued on 23.04.2014 fixing the date of hearing on 20.05.2014. The hearing was later adjourned to 29.05.2014. The petitioner sought adjournment and the hearing got postponed to 30.06.2014. Since an adjournment was sought once again on 30.06.2014, a fresh notice was issued on 30.06.2014 fixing the date of hearing as 04.08.2014. It is against this notice, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 6. Interestingly, the above writ petition was filed on 31.07.2014. But the counsel for the petitioner appeared for the hearing before the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner or a chartered accountant duly authorised by him. (4) On the date fixed, the Adjudicating Authority shall explain to the person proceeded against or his legal practitioner or the chartered accountant, as the case may be, the contravention, alleged to have been committed by such person indicating the provisions of the Actor of rules, regulations, notifications, direction or orders or any condition subject to which an authorisation is issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of which contravention is alleged to have taken place. (5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, then, given an opportunity to such person to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary, the hearing may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-rule (8) shall be dated and signed by the Adjudicating Authority. (11) A copy of the order made under sub-rule (8) of the rule 4 shall be supplied free of charge to the person against whom the order is made and all other copies of proceedings shall be supplied to him on payment of copying fee @ ₹ 2 per page, (12) The copying fee referred to in sub-rule (11) shall be paid in cash or in the form of demand draft in favour of the Adjudicating Authority. 9. A careful look at the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (12) of Rule 4 would show that the enquiry by the respondent, comprises of five stages, which are as follows:- 1. The issue of show cause notice of a duration of not less than ten days, calling upon the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had allowed several things to pass, before he came up with the above writ petition. When the petitioner came up with the above writ petition, the stage of Rule 4(3) had already been passed. The enquiry had actually come, at the time when the petitioner moved this Court, to the stage of Rule 4(8). Therefore, it is not possible now to put the clock back or rewind the proceedings back to the stage of Rule 4(3). 12. After all, the requirement of Rule 4(3) even if the interpretation given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is taken to be correct, should be seen only as part of the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner had crossed the stage of Rule 4(3) and the entire enquiry is now over and orders reserved, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
