Court dismisses writ petition challenging penalty under Foreign Exchange Management Act, emphasizes statutory appeal process

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, directing the deceased petitioner's legal representatives to appeal before the Special Director (Appeals) within 45 days. Emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to Article 226, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory appeal process and cautioned against bypassing it through writ petitions. The judgment underscored the principle that statutory avenues must be pursued before seeking relief from the High Court, except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
2. Jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining writ petition
3. Availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal

Issue 1: Challenge to order under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
The writ petition challenged an order imposing a penalty under Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The petitioner, who received a payment from abroad, was found guilty of contravention and directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000. The petitioner's explanation was rejected by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining writ petition
The High Court addressed the jurisdictional aspect of entertaining a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available. Citing the United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon case, the court emphasized that in matters involving recovery of dues, the High Court should insist on exhausting remedies under the relevant statute before resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted the need for caution in granting stays that could impact public projects or financial institutions' dues.

Issue 3: Availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal
Referring to the Raj Kumar Shivhare case, the court reiterated that when an appeal is available under the statute, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition challenging the tribunal's order. The court emphasized that bypassing statutory provisions through writ petitions should be discouraged. The judgment underscored the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to file an appeal before the Special Director (Appeals) under Section 17 of FEMA within 45 days. The court instructed the appellate forum to consider the question of limitation sympathetically. The judgment reiterated the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances not applicable to the present case.

---