TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him to file W.P.(C) No. 72/2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 9th January, 2004 directing the Adjudicating Authority of the respondent to conclude the proceedings on or before 30th June, 2004; that the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 30th June, 2004 held the appellant to be in contravention of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lacs and ordered confiscation of ₹ 4,50,000/- already seized; that the appellant appealed there against; that the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange vide order dated 15th October, 2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of penalty and confiscation as aforesaid; that the said order was accepted by the respondent but the seized amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- not returned compelling the appellant to write letters dated 22nd September, 2008, 3rd November, 2008, 24th July, 2009, 27th August, 2009, 2nd September, 2009, 14th October, 2009 and 11th December, 2009 for refund thereof; that the said amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- was finally refunded vide cheque dated 1st December, 2009 under cover of letter dated 30th December, 2009. The appellant thereafter sought intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where it is found after completion of the investigation that the Indian currency seized under Section 37 of the Act is not involved in the contravention and is to be returned, the same shall be returned to such persons together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment. (ii) Where it has been found during the course of adjudication that the seized Indian currency is not relevant for such adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority may pass such order returning such Indian currency together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to such person. 6. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of non maintainability thereof, it is apposite to deal with the said aspect first. The Apex Court recently in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 439 after a consideration of the entire case law including Suganmal (supra), U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 549 and ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553, made the legal position clear as under:- (i) Normally, a petition under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of law, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens. (vi) Where the lis has a public law character or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way of a public law remedy will not be denied. 7. In our view, the facts of the present case require this Court to exercise the discretion vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to step out of the normal rule and grant the relief. The said power has been recognized / upheld in the judgment (supra) also and we find the present to be a fit case for exercise thereof. As aforesaid, the facts are not in dispute. 8. The reasons for which we chose to exercise the said power, which the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held is to be exercised sparingly, are: (i) The seizure of the principal amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- has been held to be without authority of law ordinarily, upon it being so held, it is the duty of the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority to ensure that the amounts seized without authority of law are refunded at the earliest; however in the present case the Appellate Tribunal for Foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t till adjudication was held by them in trust, the same was kept in a fixed deposit. It is thus not as if the claim of the appellant for which mandamus is claimed requires any adjudication. The only question as aforesaid is whether the respondent having been found to have wrongfully seized and retained the money can also be allowed to retain the benefits accrued thereon. There is thus no adjudication required for which the appellant needs to be relegated to a Civil Suit. 11. This is more so when the respondent as State has to be a model litigant and is not expected to take technical pleas encouraging litigation. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Vyankatesh Despande (1976) 3 SCC 404 held that State which has public accountability in respect of its actions should not defend all claims and even those which are plainly and manifestly correct, thereby dragging the opposite party in unnecessary litigation. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Admane Anita Moti (1994) 6 SCC 109 it was held that State should behave like an enlightened litigant and not like an ordinary person and ought not to defend cases only because the vanity of a particular officer is hurt. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
