LAWS(MAD)-1980-8-17

DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT MADRAS Vs. RAMA ARANGANNAL

Decided On August 29, 1980
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, MADRAS Appellant
V/S
RAMA ARANGANNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal had been filed by the Director of Enforcement against the order dated 13th Dec. 1974 of the Foreign Exchange Regularation Appellate Board, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein and setting aside the order of adjudication of the Deputy Director of Enforcement., dated 28th August 1972 holding the respondents guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5000 on each of the respondents.

(2.) The appellant, the Director of Enforcement, has filed the appeal claiming him self to be aggrieved against the said order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents herein as to the maintainability of the appeal by the Director of Enforcement. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is twofold, (1) Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1073, it is only the Central Government which can be taken to be aggrieved against the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under Section 54 of the Act, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and the Director of Enforcement who passed the initial order of adjudication cannot file the appeal treating himself as an aggrieved person; (2) The. Director of Enforcement being himself a quasi judicial Tribunal passing an order of adjudication cannot be, In any event, taken to be aggrieved against the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board reversing his decision, and, that, therefore, this appeal filed by the Director of Enforcement cannot, in any events be maintained.

(3.) These preliminary objections have been, raised even at the earlier stage when Sathiadey, J. Taking note of these objections, the appellant, was hearing the appeal; Director of Enforcement has chosen to file C. X. P. No, 12251 of 1979 seeking an amendment of the cause title in the memorandum of appeal grounds by substitution of the name of the appellant as the Government of India, represented by the Director of Enforcement' Instead of the original appellant 'Director of Enforcement'. Though the said petition purports to be an innocuous one for amendment of the cause title in the memorandum of grounds, it really amounts to the substitution of a new appellant in' the place of the original appellant, the Director of Enforcement whose rights to file and maintain an appeal against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board has been questioned. In para 12 of the affidavit in support of the said petition for amendment, it has been stated that though the appellant's name is shown as the Director of Enforcement, the appeal has, in fact, been filed on behalf of the Government of India, and therefore, the appeal should be treated as having been filed by the Government of India. I do not see how the appeal which Is purported to have been filed by the Director of Enforcement can be said to have been filed by the Government of India Even if the Director of Enforcement has been authorised to file the appeal and the appeal has been filed at the instance of the Government of India, the cause title of the appeal memorandum should show the. Government of India as the appellant But when the memorandum of grounds of appeal shows the Director of Enforcement as the appellant, If is not open either to the director of Enforcement or to the Government of India, to say that the appeal has been filed the Government of India, Admittedly, the Director of Enforcement Is an authority subordinate to the Government of India, and he is a person Invested with certain powers under the statute as well as by the Government of India. Therefore, the Director of Enforcement I cannot in any sense be equated with or treated as the Government of. India. Further, it is significant to note that even the amendment petition has been filed only by the Director of Enforcement and not by the Government of India. It would have been a different matter if the Government of India had filed a petition stating that the appeal has been filed at their instructions, but it has been Mad by mistake or inadvertence In the name of the Director of Enforcement and, therefore, Government of India may be allowed to be shown as the appellant, Having regard to the fact that the Government of India has not so far come into the picture, the petition for amendment filed by the original appellant, the Director of Enforcement, for a change in the name of the appellant from the Director of Enforcement into the Government of India, represented by the Director of Enforcement cannot be allowed. Hence, the said petition has to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.