FEMA Rule 4(3) doesn't require sharing reasons when issuing personal hearing notice for adjudication proceedings

The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging FEMA adjudication proceedings where personal hearing notice was issued without providing reasoned opinion under Rule 4(3). The court held that Rule 4(3) does not expressly mandate communication of reasons to the person against whom proceedings are initiated. While the Bombay HC had judicially expanded the rule's scope, the Madras HC found that plain reading of the rule only requires the Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion before issuing notice, not to communicate such reasons. The court declined to entertain the writ petition during intermittent stage, directing the petitioner to defend through available procedural opportunities under the Act and Rules.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the personal hearing notice issued without providing the reasoned opinion under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000.
2. Interpretation of Rule 4(3) regarding the necessity to furnish the reasoned opinion to the noticee.
3. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the current case.
4. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning show cause notices.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Personal Hearing Notice:
The petitioner, a scheduled commercial bank, challenged the adjudication proceedings dated 04.04.2024 under FEMA 1999, specifically contesting the personal hearing notice issued without providing the reasoned opinion formed under Rule 4(3). The petitioner argued that it is mandatory for the respondent to furnish the reasoned opinion before fixing a date for personal hearing, citing a violation of the Rules and relevant judicial precedents.

2. Interpretation of Rule 4(3):
The petitioner contended that Rule 4(3) requires the Adjudicating Authority to provide a reasoned opinion to the noticee before proceeding with the inquiry. This interpretation was supported by the Bombay High Court's judgment and a consequential circular issued by the Directorate of Enforcement on 26.09.2024. Conversely, the respondent argued that Rule 4(3) does not mandate the communication of the reasoned opinion to the noticee. The plain reading of the Rule suggests that the reasoned opinion is for the internal use of the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether to proceed with the inquiry.

3. Judicial Precedents:
The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar v. Union of India and Lalit Kumar Modi v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which mandated the communication of the reasoned opinion to the noticee. However, the respondent pointed out that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of India Cements v. Union of India, had disagreed with the Bombay High Court's interpretation, stating that such communication is not mandatory. The Madras High Court's Division Bench judgment, being later in time, was considered to prevail over the Bombay High Court's judgment.

4. Scope of Judicial Review:
The court emphasized that a writ petition against a show cause notice or personal hearing notice is generally not maintainable under Article 226 unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with mala fides. The court noted that Rule 4(3) does not explicitly require the communication of the reasoned opinion to the noticee. Judicial expansion of the Rule to mandate such communication would prejudice the Department's interests and hamper further proceedings. The court held that the procedures under the Rules are self-regulated and in consonance with natural justice, and any further judicial expansion is unnecessary.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that Rule 4(3) does not mandate the communication of the reasoned opinion to the noticee. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the proceedings and avail the opportunities provided under the Act and Rules. The court reiterated that judicial review of show cause notices is limited and should not interfere with the procedural mechanisms established by the Rules.

---