Issue preclusion bars a writ petition from reopening RBI foreign exchange compliance already decided between the parties.

A writ petition cannot reopen a question conclusively decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties on the same factual and legal foundation. The Court noted that the legality of the RBI's acceptance of Form IPI-7, the alleged FERA violation, and the applicability of Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 had already been examined in connected appeals, where the transaction was held to fall within the general permission framework and to have been duly accepted by RBI. On that basis, the preliminary objection to maintainability was upheld and the writ petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the legality of the RBI acceptance of Form IPI-7 and the alleged violation of the FERA regime had already been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings between the parties.

Analysis: The same controversy concerning the transaction, the applicability of Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the RBI notification had been examined and decided in the connected appeals. The prior judgment held that the transaction fell within the general permission framework and that the declaration submitted to RBI had been accepted, rendering the transaction compliant with the applicable foreign exchange regime. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner could not seek to reopen the same question in writ jurisdiction. The preliminary objection to maintainability was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred from re-agitating issues already decided and was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A question conclusively decided in prior proceedings between the same parties cannot be reopened in a later writ petition on the same factual and legal foundation.

---