Statutory appeal over writ review where foreign exchange adjudication raised disputed facts and no jurisdictional defect appeared

The Madras HC noted that proceedings under the repealed foreign exchange law were saved by the later enactment, and that the specially constituted adjudicating authority retained jurisdiction to decide alleged contraventions. It also found that the record disclosed adequate opportunity, so there was no violation of natural justice. On writ maintainability, the Court said disputed factual questions and the statutory appellate scheme made appeal the proper forum, with no exceptional ground to bypass Article 226. The writ petitions were therefore not examined on merits, and the parties were left to pursue the statutory appeal remedy with interim and limitation-related directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order under the repealed foreign exchange regime suffered from want of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order under the repealed foreign exchange regime suffered from want of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law, but the saving provision in the later enactment preserved actions taken under the earlier regime. The adjudicating authority was itself specially constituted to decide contraventions, and the record showed that the parties were given sufficient opportunity before the impugned order was passed.

Conclusion: The adjudication order did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute involved several documents and contested factual questions that were more appropriately examined in appeal. The later enactment provided an appellate mechanism, and actions taken under the repealed law were to be treated as falling within that framework. The Court found no exceptional circumstance to bypass the appellate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the appellate forum and directed to pursue the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not decided on merits and the parties were left to work out the statutory appeal remedy with interim protection and limitation-related directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available and the controversy turns on disputed facts, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked unless there is a jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice.

---