Court Upholds Rs.50 Lakh Penalty; Dismisses Claims of Procedural Breach Due to Lack of Evidence and Non-Appeal.

The HC of Calcutta dismissed the writ petition challenging a Rs.50 lakh penalty imposed by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner alleged a breach of natural justice, citing hospitalization and lack of document access. The court found no procedural breach, noting the petitioner's awareness of proceedings and failure to substantiate claims. It emphasized the appealability of the order and the petitioner's choice to file a writ petition instead. Consequently, the court upheld the penalty, underscoring the necessity of active participation and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction absent substantial evidence of procedural irregularities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice in imposing penalty under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to a case where the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs.50 lakhs for violating the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner contended that the order was vitiated by a breach of natural justice as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The petitioner, through his senior advocate, argued that he was unwell and hospitalized during crucial periods, and therefore, was unable to participate in the proceedings. The advocate also claimed that the petitioner was not provided with all the documents relied upon by the authorities and was denied the right of cross-examination. The petitioner requested the court to set aside the order and remand the case for a fresh trial, indicating his willingness to participate. However, the court noted that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings but chose not to participate, and therefore, rejected the contention of lack of notice or opportunity. The court emphasized that the impugned order was appealable, but the petitioner opted for a writ petition instead. Since the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims of hospitalization and non-receipt of notices, the court concluded that there was no breach of natural justice in the case. The court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the authorities to proceed with the implementation of the penalty order.

Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and the consequences of choosing not to engage in the process. It underscores the limited scope of review in writ jurisdiction and the need for substantial evidence to support claims of procedural irregularities. The court's decision emphasizes that parties must avail themselves of available remedies, such as appeals, before seeking judicial intervention through writ petitions.

---