9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of violations of principles of natural justice and as to how the Supreme Court has interpreted the same in respect of the civil consequence entailing from the decisions of the administrative authority, relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 as also the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International (2014) 9 SCC 263 to buttress his aforesaid arguments. 3. In respect of the judgment in the case of State Bank of India (Supra), Mr. Dar learned senior counsel draws attention of this Court to para 33, 34 and 35 to submit that the Supreme Court has held that if there is power to decide and determine conferred upon an authority to the prejudice of a person, it is incumbent upon the said authority to act judicially which is implicit in the very nature of the proceedings itself. 4. In that, according to learned senior counsel, the petitioner before this Court was never afforded any opportunity to present his case before the Adjudicating Authority. To the same effect, learned senior counsel invites attention of this Court to the judgment of Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present petition to submit that the petitioner while submitting its synopsis for the case of recovery by the Central Bank of India, vide the letter dated 01.09.2000 at page 72 of the present petition, had categorically informed the Central Bank of India about its fresh address at Gurugram. Learned Senior Counsel subsequently also invites attention of this Court to the letter dated 28.02.2001 issued by the Central Bank of India to the petitioner at the very same address at Gurugram. 10. On the aforesaid issue, learned Senior Counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the Central Bank of India had clear knowledge of the shifting of the petitioner to the address at Gurugram, the subsequent proceedings before the learned ACMM on the basis that they have been served at the previous address would render the proceedings itself void. 11. According to learned Senior Counsel, the result would be quashing of the entire proceedings. 12. That coupled with the judgment of the Supreme Court laid on the law aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel submits that the present petition should be allowed and the exparte proceedings which were initiated by the Enforcement Directorate dated 04.04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent and perused the documents on record with the assistance of learned counsel. This Court has also considered the judgments placed on record by the learned counsel. 17. Brief facts, which are germane to the dispute and culled out from the order dated 12.01.2022 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner (accused in Bail Appl. No. 2130/2020) which are as under:- "Brief background as per the complaint u/s 56 FERA Act filed by ED before trial court on 04.04.2002 are that an information is received by the ED from RBI that accused firm had exported the goods and failed to realize the certain export bills pursuant to which inquiries were made from his bankers i.e. Central Bank of India. Central Bank of India vide various letters reported to the ED that 35 GRs pertaining to year 1992-93 valued US Dollar 1049426 are export outstanding which the accused had not realized till such time. Thereafter the accused was called upon to explain whether any such permission was granted to accused from RBI for realization for export proceeds, and he was served with memorandum and also with opportunity notice dated 25.01.2001 thereby accused was asked to place on record such permissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e report, the ED did not try to obtain fresh address from the Central Bank of India or from the RBI. In this context, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the said order, which is as under:- "The Central Bank of India had not communicated the said address to ED. Furthermore, on receiving the non service report, the ED also not tried to obtain the fresh address from Central Bank of India or RBI. Ld. SPP for ED submits that fresh address should be submitted to the ED however it is clear from the record that accused were not aware of the proceedings before ED, therefore there appears no occasion for accused to furnish the fresh address to ED. The accused came into the knowledge about present proceedings on receiving demand notice at Gurugram in 2020, thereafter filed the present application for anticipatory bail. The PO proceedings by the trial court was conducted on the addresses, on which the accused was not found during investigation by ED. It is also pertinent to notice that accused do not appear to have changed the address because of the proceedings with the bank as the accused has already communicated his fresh address to the bank vide letter dated 01.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y distinguishable, in that, case of the Supreme Court was called upon to consider as to whether the certain provisions of FERA, 1973 including Section 56 are ultra vires the Constitution, which was negated by the Supreme Court. 25. This Court has perused the paragraphs relied upon by Mr. Yogeshwaran learned senior standing counsel for ED and is unable to appreciate the reliance placed thereon qua the facts of the present case. 26. So far as the judgments of Supreme Court in the State Bank of India (Supra) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Dar, learned Senior Counsel are concerned, they laid down the law in respect of what is trite by now that rule of Audi Alteram Partem is fundamental to the policy of Indian law and as such any order by any quasi-judicial authority or any administrative authority entailing drastic civil consequences cannot be sustained except after affording an opportunity to the person who would have to face such civil consequences. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that there has been clear violation of principles of natural justice in the present case. 27. A similar issue has been subject matter of a case decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61(2) of FERA, there is clearly a breach of the mandate of law. Since the requirements of Section 61(2) of FERA have not been complied with, reliance placed by the respondent on the statement recorded at the time when proceedings under Section 40 of FERA were being undertaken and reliance on the same in the impugned order as sufficient compliance of Section 61(2) of FERA, is clearly misplaced. 17. Since respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 61(2) of FERA, the Trial Court clearly erred in taking cognizance. 18. In view of the above, the impugned order on charge dated 11.07.2017 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 11.07.2017 is, accordingly, quashed. The present petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost." 29. At the end, learned Single Judge had concluded that since the respondent therein had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 61(2) of FERA, the Trial Court in that case clearly had erred in taking cognizance and on that basis, quashed and set aside the impugned order on charge. 30. This Court respectfully concurs with the observations and the ratio laid down in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
