Legal appointment under repealed law upheld; timely notices crucial; transitional provisions applied.

The court upheld the legality of the appointment of adjudicating officers under FERA after its repeal by FEMA. The show-cause notices were issued within the time limit prescribed by FEMA, saving the operation of FERA for cases initiated before the repeal. The court emphasized that offenses committed under FERA before the enforcement of FEMA are to be governed by its provisions. The appointment of adjudicators under the impugned proceedings was deemed appropriate for addressing matters related to offenses committed prior to the new law. The writ petition was dismissed, highlighting the importance of saving provisions in transitional legal frameworks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to appointment of adjudicating officers under FERA after its repeal by FEMA.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of adjudicating officers under FERA after its repeal by FEMA. They argued that no power exists to take notice of offenses under the repealed Act after the commencement of FEMA. The respondents contended that the show-cause notices were issued within the time limit prescribed by FEMA, saving the operation of FERA for adjudication of cases initiated before the repeal. The appointment of adjudicating officers under FERA was deemed legal under the saving provision of FEMA.

The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India and Air India v. Union of India to support their argument that the appointment of adjudicators under the repealed Act is not valid after the enactment of a new law. However, the respondents relied on section 49 of FEMA, which deals with repeal and saving provisions. The court noted that offenses committed under the repealed Act are to be governed by its provisions as if the Act had not been repealed, saving the proceedings initiated under FERA.

The court emphasized that the show-cause notices were issued for offenses committed under FERA before the enforcement of FEMA. The appointment of adjudicators under the impugned proceedings was deemed appropriate to address matters related to offenses committed prior to the new law coming into force. Consequently, the court found the writ petition lacking in merit and dismissed it, upholding the legality of the appointment of adjudicating officers under FERA after its repeal by FEMA.

The judgment highlights the significance of the saving provisions in transitional legal frameworks and the continued applicability of repealed laws to offenses committed before the enactment of new legislation. It underscores the importance of interpreting statutory provisions to ensure the continuity of legal proceedings and the effective adjudication of cases initiated under previous laws.

---