Ex post facto permission under foreign exchange law may cure prior absence, while pending applications bar premature adjudication.

Where a statute requires an act to be done with the competent authority's permission but does not expressly insist on prior permission, permission may be granted ex post facto. The text applies this principle to section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, noting that the prohibited act does not complete the offence unless permission is refused. It also states that adjudication is premature while an application for permission remains pending, because the statutory process has not concluded and the existence of contravention cannot yet be finally determined. The material therefore treats pending permission as a bar to enforcement until the authority decides the request.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether permission of the Reserve Bank under section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had to be obtained prior to the impugned act or could be granted ex post facto; (ii) whether adjudication proceedings initiated while the application for permission was still pending before the Reserve Bank were premature.

Issue (i): Whether permission of the Reserve Bank under section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had to be obtained prior to the impugned act or could be granted ex post facto.

Analysis: Section 16 used the expression "general or special permission" without qualifying it by the word "previous". The Court applied the principle that, where the statute does not require prior permission expressly, the permission may be granted either before or after the act complained of. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in relation to the same expression in the Act was treated as applicable to section 16. On that construction, the prohibited act does not by itself complete the offence unless there is a refusal of permission by the Reserve Bank.

Conclusion: The permission under section 16 could be sought and granted ex post facto, and prior permission was not mandatory.

Issue (ii): Whether adjudication proceedings initiated while the application for permission was still pending before the Reserve Bank were premature.

Analysis: Since the availability of permission was central to whether the alleged contravention was complete, the relevant question was whether the Reserve Bank had finally refused permission before the proceedings were commenced. The pending application meant that the statutory process had not concluded. In that situation, initiation of adjudication was misconceived and premature.

Conclusion: The adjudication proceedings were premature while the application for permission remained pending.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration after the Reserve Bank decided the pending application for permission.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute permits an act only with the "permission" of the competent authority and does not expressly require prior permission, the permission may be granted ex post facto, and enforcement proceedings are premature until the authority has finally decided the pending request.

---