CAPT SATISH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the communication dated 20.10.2003 whereby the respondent No. 2has communicated to the petitioners that its Special Director is of the opinion that adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange and Regulations Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA) should be held against the petitioners in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as a said Rules) and intimating the petitioners of the date of personal hearing. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that in the said communication dated 20.10.2003, it is communicated that the petitions had failed to reply to the memorandum/show-cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2. The show cause notice/memorandum dated 23.5.2002 had been issued by the respondent No. 2 to all the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are under the provisions of Sections 9(l)(a)(c) and (f) read with Section 64(2) of FERA read with Sections 49(3) and 49(4) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as a FEMA). All the petitioners sent tentative replies to the said show-cause notice on 29.7.2002, copies whereof have been placed at pages 46,52 and 57 of the paper book. As such, it does appear that the statement contained in the communication dated 20.10.2002 is not entirely correct to the extent that the petitioners had in fact filed the replies.

(2.) The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that, according to them, the documents that were necessary and that have been referred to in the show-cause notice had not been supplied to them. However, in this respect, learned Counsel for the respondents have handed over a photo copy of the handwritten receipt of a clerk of an Advocate by the name of Mr. A.K. Vali, acknowledging receipt of photocopies of documents relied upon in the said case. The same is taken on record. There is, however, some controversy with regard to the fact as to whether this receipt has been issued by an authorised person or not. Be that as it may, the entire writ petition can be disposed of in view of the fact that the respondents, although they submit that they have already supplied documents, are willing to supply a second set of the documents that are relied upon in this case being the documents mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the said show-cause notice/memorandum.

(3.) The procedure prescribed under the said rules and in particular Rule 3 thereof becomes clear upon a reading of the same.