UDAI PRAKASH BHARTIYA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 12th of April 2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Kolkata, Respondent No. 1 and has prayed for quashing further proceedings which may be initiated on the basis of the said notice.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Mathur, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under sub -rule (1) of Rule 4, the Adjudicating Authority should have issued a notice to such person requiring him to show - cause within such period as may be specified in the notice (being not less than ten days from the date of service thereof) why an inquiry should not be held against him. Under sub -rule (3), if a reply/explanation is submitted by such person and after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person, if the Adjudicating Authority is of the opinion that inquiry should be held, he shall issue a notice fixing the date for the appearance of the person either personally or through his legal practitioner or a chartered accountant duly authorized by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first notice as envisaged under sub -rule (1) and thereafter second notice under sub -rule (3) ought to have been given and in any case, a composite notice is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act or Rules.