Court dismisses writ petition citing statutory remedy under Section 19 of FEMA, 1999, maintains right to appeal.

The court dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 19 of FEMA, 1999, and the absence of a cause of action within its jurisdiction. The court clarified that the dismissal would not impact the petitioners' right to approach the Appellate Authority to address all relevant issues, ensuring no prejudice to any potential appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Availability of statutory alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA, 1999).
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The respondents contended that the writ petition filed in Jaipur challenging the order passed by the Additional Director is not maintainable as no cause of action arose in Rajasthan. The petitioners argued that part of the cause of action did arise in Rajasthan, citing the complaint originating from Jaipur and the direction to deposit the penalty amount in Jaipur. However, the court ruled that these factors do not constitute a cause of action in Rajasthan. It was noted that the petitioners had previously filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which led to the adjudication by the authorities resulting in the order in question.

2. Statutory Alternative Remedy:
The respondents emphasized that the petitioners had the option to appeal under Section 19 of FEMA, 1999, which they failed to utilize. The petitioners argued that the violation of natural justice principles justified their approach to the court. The court clarified that the existence of an appellate forum for addressing grievances, including issues of natural justice, delay, or authority competence, precludes the need for the writ petition. It highlighted that the appellate tribunal has the power to consider issues such as limitation and can condone delays upon proper cause being shown.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners alleged a breach of natural justice principles and non-compliance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. They argued that the authorities did not follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioners contended that adherence to the rules is mandatory. However, the court found that the availability of a statutory remedy through the appellate tribunal negated the need for the writ petition based on alleged violations of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition due to the existence of an alternative, statutory remedy for the petitioners and the lack of a cause of action before the court.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition citing the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 19 of FEMA, 1999, and the absence of a cause of action within its jurisdiction. The court clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not affect the petitioners' right to approach the Appellate Authority and raise all relevant issues, ensuring that the order had no impact on the merits of any appeal.

---