THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANR. versus MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 09-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226--Writ petition-Show cause 
notice Challenged-Petition entertained by High Court and interim relief 
granted restraining the proceedings-On appeal, held: Petition against show c 
cause notice should not be entertained as a matter of routine, unless Court is 
satisfied that the notice was totally non-est for absolute want of jurisdiction 
of authority to even investigate into the facts-While granting interim order, 
Court should be cautious of not denuding the statutory functionaries of their 
powers and to ensure that in the interim order ultimate relief is not granted-
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973-Foreign Exchange Management Act, D 
1999. 
Respondent No. I filed writ petition before High Court questioning 
legality of show cause notice issued by appellant No. I, praying for quashing 
the same. Prayer for interim injunction restraining the appellants from 
initiating any proceedings pursuant to show cause notice was also made. E 
High Court issued 'Rule' and ordered for 'status quo' without giving any 
reason. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the writ petition 
was misconceived as it challenged show cause notice; and that High Court, F 
by granting interim relief has in effect allowed the writ petition even before 
.. .! 
it was heard on merits. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Unless High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice G 
was totally non-est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of 
the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petition should not be 
" 
entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ 
\ 
petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice 
and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause 
399 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] I S.C.R. 
A notiCe was founded on any premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even 
~; 
be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be 
adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the 
aggrieved could approach the Court. [402-B-D[ 
B 
2.1. When the Court passes an interim order, it should be careful to 
see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted 
for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide 
the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally 
granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the 
threshold by the interim protection, granted. [402-D[ 
c 
~I 
2.2. In the instant case, High Court has not indicated any reason 
while giving interim protection. Though, while passing interim orders, it 
is not necessary to elaborately deal with the merits, it is certainly desirable 
and proper for the High Court to indicate the reasons which has weighed 
with it in granting such an extra ordinary relief in the form of an interim 
D protection. [402-E[ 
[The Court directed that the protection emanating from the show 
Jr 
cause notice shall be continued, but the final order passed pursuant 
A 
thereto shall not be communicated to respondent No.I, without 
leave or further orders of the High Court.[ 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
35 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2002 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. I 065 of 2002. 
F 
A.L. Panda, Ms. Neelam Sharma for B. Krishna Prasad for the 
:\. 
Appellants. 
V.R. Reddy, Rajindra Singhvi for Ashok Kumar Singh for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
"
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
! 
The interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High 
H Court is under challenge by the Union of India and the Special Director, 
•i 
SPECIAL DIRECTOR v.MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
401 
Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. Respondent A 
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. I 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 B 
writ petition, the Court be pleased to pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.