2004 (1) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court questioning legality of the show-cause notice No. T-4/144/SDE/(AKB)/ B/2002 dated 31st May, 2002 issued by the appellant No. 1 and prayed that the same may be quashed and set aside, for allegedly being illegal, null and void. A prayer for interim relief was made to the effect that pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents i.e., present appellants before this Court and the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 3 in the present appeal) and/or his subordinates or any other officer acting on his behalf from initiating any proceeding pursuan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upees 270 crores. Respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) was clearly guilty of various provisions of FERA and FEMA. The High Court should have thrown out the writ petition at the threshold. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the show-cause notice is clearly unfounded in law, cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny and the High Court was justified not only in entertaining writ petition but also in granting the interim protection. 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in th....