26-year delay in FERA case leads to quashing of notices; Violation of speedy trial rights and natural justice

The court quashed the show cause notice and subsequent notices of hearing due to inordinate delay of 26 years in adjudication proceedings under FERA. The delay was deemed a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the authorities' failure to supply documents relied upon violated principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the delay and conduct of the authorities amounted to an abuse of the process of law, leading to the dropping of adjudication proceedings against the petitioner without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of show cause notice due to inordinate delay.
2. Violation of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Non-supply of documents relied upon by the authorities.
4. Whether the delay in adjudication proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Show Cause Notice Due to Inordinate Delay:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a show cause notice dated January 14, 1991, issued by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, on the grounds of inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The petitioner argued that the delay caused worry, anxiety, expenses, and disturbance to his vocation and peace of mind. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued in 1991 and replied to in 1991, but the first notice of hearing was only issued in 1999, and subsequent notices were issued in 2015, showing a clear delay of 26 years without any adjudication or hearing.

2. Violation of the Petitioner’s Right to a Speedy Trial Under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that the prolonged delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21. The court concluded that the delay caused significant prejudice to the petitioner and amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.

3. Non-Supply of Documents Relied Upon by the Authorities:
The petitioner repeatedly requested the supply of documents relied upon by the authorities to justify the show cause notice. Despite multiple requests, the authorities failed to provide these documents. The court found that the authorities' failure to supply the documents violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner could not meaningfully defend himself without access to the evidence against him.

4. Whether the Delay in Adjudication Proceedings Amounts to Abuse of the Process of Law:
The court observed that the authorities showed a lack of diligence and seriousness in proceeding with the adjudication. The petitioner’s requests for documents were ignored, and no hearings were held for 24 years. The court held that the delay and conduct of the authorities amounted to an abuse of the process of law and caused undue prejudice to the petitioner. The court emphasized that charges of a quasi-criminal nature should not hang indefinitely over an individual without resolution.

Court’s Conclusion:
The court quashed the show cause notice dated January 14, 1991, and the subsequent notices of hearing, thereby dropping the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the delay was unreasonable and unexplained, and the authorities' conduct indicated a lack of incriminating material against the petitioner. The court held that justice delayed is justice denied and that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial had been infringed.

Final Order:
The writ petition (W.P. 322 of 2015) was disposed of without any order as to costs. The court refused a subsequent prayer for a stay of the judgment's operation.

---