Delay, laches and no fresh writ without liberty defeat a repeat challenge to FCNR/NRE account treatment.

Unexplained delay and an earlier withdrawal of a similar writ petition without liberty to refile attracted the bar of laches and prevented a second petition on the same cause of action. On merits, returned residents could not claim an enforceable right to retain or reconvert FCNR/NRE accounts contrary to the foreign exchange regulatory regime; the RBI permission was conditional and the conditions were not complied with. The note therefore records that the writ failed on maintainability and also on the absence of any legal entitlement to the requested account status and repatriation relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by delay, laches, and the effect of an earlier withdrawal of a similar petition without liberty to file afresh; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled on merits to insist upon continuance or reconversion of their FCNR/NRE accounts and repatriation of funds.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by delay, laches, and the effect of an earlier withdrawal of a similar petition without liberty to file afresh?

Analysis: The petitioners were aware of the impugned decision for years, yet approached the Court only after a long and unexplained delay. An earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without liberty to institute a fresh petition. Repetition of the same grievance on the same facts, even after making representations, did not create a new cause of action. The principles governing delay, laches, and the bar against a second petition on the same cause were attracted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners; the petition was not maintainable on these preliminary grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled on merits to insist upon continuance or reconversion of their FCNR/NRE accounts and repatriation of funds?

Analysis: On the facts found, the petitioners had returned to India and were required under the foreign exchange regime to redesignate their accounts as resident accounts. The Reserve Bank had granted limited permission subject to conditions, but those conditions were not complied with. The statutory scheme under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the relevant directions did not confer an enforceable right to retain FCNR/NRE status contrary to the regulatory conditions. The petitioners' request was therefore only for a discretionary benefit, not an entitlement in law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners; no relief was available on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed both on threshold maintainability and on merits, and the connected civil application was disposed of accordingly, save for the limited prayers expressly granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A second writ petition on the same cause of action, filed after withdrawal of an earlier petition without liberty and accompanied by unexplained delay, is not maintainable, and no enforceable right exists to retain foreign currency account status contrary to the applicable foreign exchange regulatory conditions.

---