Court upholds writ petition, deems communication valid. No natural justice violation found. Dismissal directs lawful proceedings.

The court deemed the writ petition maintainable as the impugned communication was not appealable. The requirement for legible copies of documents was addressed, considering the unavailability of some documents in a readable form due to damage. The court found no violation of natural justice as the respondents provided available documents. The validity of the impugned communication was upheld, concluding that the petitioners were not prejudiced by the non-supply of legible copies. The petition was dismissed, directing the Adjudicating Authority to proceed lawfully.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Requirement of providing legible copies of documents relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Validity of the impugned communication issued by the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the impugned communication was appealable before the Court of Special Director (Appeals) under FEMA. However, the court held that the impugned communication was not an appealable order since the Adjudicating Authority had not passed any order under Rule 4(8) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed maintainable, and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was rejected.

2. Requirement of Providing Legible Copies of Documents:
The petitioners contended that the documents relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority were unreadable and requested legible copies or inspection. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement, which mandates that the Adjudicating Authority must provide documents relied upon to the noticee to ensure a fair opportunity to respond. However, the court noted that some documents were not legible due to damage in floods and were not available in a legible form with the respondents. Consequently, the court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the respondents could not provide what they did not possess.

3. Validity of the Impugned Communication:
The petitioners argued that the Adjudicating Authority issued the impugned communication mechanically without considering their request for legible documents. The court found that the respondents had provided all available documents and that the petitioners had effectively responded to the allegations despite the unreadable documents. Therefore, the court held that the non-supply of legible copies did not prejudice the petitioners and did not infringe the principles of fairness.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition and directed the Adjudicating Authority to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law expeditiously. The impugned communication issued by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld.

---