Writ petition challenging FEMA order dismissed; alternative remedy available; jurisdiction upheld.

The court held that the writ petition challenging an order under Section 16 of FEMA was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 19 of FEMA. It was found that pending proceedings under the omitted provision, Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA, were saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, allowing Respondent No. 1 to have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, directing the petitioners to pursue their alternative remedy under Section 19 of FEMA, and closing any pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 to pass the impugned order under a subsequently omitted provision.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The primary issue was whether the writ petition challenging the order under Section 16 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) was maintainable. The court noted that a writ petition should not be entertained if an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited*, which held that a writ petition is maintainable in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of the principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the constitutionality of any law. The court found that the Petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 19 of FEMA, thus the writ petition was not maintainable.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1
The Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA, which was omitted from the Act effective 15.10.2019. They contended that pending proceedings under an omitted provision cease to exist and are not saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court, however, disagreed, citing several Supreme Court decisions, including *Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. v. CIT* and *Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE*, which held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to omissions as well as repeals. The court concluded that pending proceedings under an omitted provision are saved and can continue. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

Findings:
The court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves pending proceedings under a provision that is subsequently omitted. As the proceedings against the Petitioners were initiated when Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA was still in force, they were saved despite the subsequent omission of the provision. Consequently, the court found that Respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the Petitioners were directed to pursue their alternative remedy under Section 19 of FEMA. The court also closed any pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition.

---