1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDNARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 333/2009 M/s Ronson Industrial Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Shri.Bindu Gandhi, 307, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Dr.E.Moses Road , Worli, Mumbai 400 018. Petitioner Versus 1] Director General of Foreign Trade, having his office at Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 2] Shri.B.P.Bunkar, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Office of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, CGO Complex, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. Respondents Mr.Mathew Nedumpara i/b Ms.J.J.Ostwal for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Prajapati for the respondents CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 12th November, 2009 P.C. . The petitioner has challenged Show Cause Notice dated 14/8/2008 issued by the Foreign Trade 2 Development Officer, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The allegation against the petitioner is that the goods imported by him against license which is described in the notice were not utilised for the purpose for which they were imported and the license was also obtained on the basis of mis-representation and mis-declaration of facts . It is also the case of the Ministry of Commerce that the petitioner has not submitted proof of documents towards discharge of export obligation which according to the Ministry of Commerce tantamounts to violation of the conditions against which the license was issued. 2] The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 9/9/2008. He also forwarded letter dated 25/10/2008 to Shri. Bunkar, Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade , Government of India. There is on record a letter dated 10/11/2008 addressed by Shri. Bunkar to the petitioner. In paragraph-1 Shri.Bunkar has reproduced the 3 contents of the letter sent by the petitioner to him We may quote those averments. You have stated that “ the Show Cause Notice could have only been issued by a person who is authorized by law to conduct a quasi judicial proceeding and Shri.Bunkar having not addressed himself to the material before him if any, and not having come to a judicial decision that the facts alleged constituted enough ground to issue a show cause Notice, there is no way in which he could legally hear my client and proceed any further with the adjudication proceeding.He has one option open to him ,that is, to throw the Show Cause Notice in the dustbin and close the matter. Shri.Bunkar wise and sagacious as he could be, I am suire, will certainly adopt that course of action. I having no doubt in that, to further reply to your Show Cause Notice is really and exercise which is superfluous. However, as a lawyer replying on behalf of his client, I do not wish that the merits of the matter/facts should remain undiscussed.” 3] This reply displays the arrogant approach 4 of the petitioner. At this stage we do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case. But assuming the petitioner has good case, he cannot tell the Authority which has issued notice to him that the show cause notice should be thrown in the dustbin. We deprecate the conduct of the petitioner. 4] Shri.Bunkar has further stated in the letter that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit stating that DEEC Books have been lost/ misplaced after having been registered with the Bombay Customs House and utilized partly. Shri.Bunkar has further stated in the letter that the logged DEEC Books are mandatorily required documents showing fulfillment of E.O. But the petitioner has not submitted the same. The petitioner was advised to furnish all required documents showing fulfillment of 100% export obligation. Thus the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has not submitted 5 the required documents. This case is denied by the petitioner. 5] It appears that thereafter the petitioner submitted another reply dated 11/12/2008. We are informed that yet another letter 22/10/2009 has been sent by the petitioner to the Jt.Director General of Foreign Trade .However, the show cause notice is not yet adjudicated. 6] v bvv Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show cause notice must be struck down because it does not contain the particulars of the alleged misrepresentation . He submits that it does not disclose the offence at all. Learned counsel submits that the law requires that the person who sends the show cause notice must first see as to whether the cause shown in the reply to the show cause notice is sufficient. He must record his reasons and then only enquiry can start. An 6 enquiry can start only if he finds that the cause shown is not sufficient. He drew our attention to the Adjudication and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 . He relied on Rule 3 thereof and submitted that said Rule is not followed by the respondent. 7] Perusal of the show cause notice indicates that the respondents have clearly stated therein their case against the petitioner . The submission that the show cause notice is vague must therefore be rejected. It is obligatory on the petitioner to co- operate with the respondents in the adjudication of the show cause notice.The petitioner can agitate all points before the Authority .But the petitioner cannot tell the Authority that the show cause notice be thrown in dustbin. If the petitioner has good case he must make it out in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had gone to the Adjudicating Authority to appear 7 for personal hearing. However, the Adjudicating Authority was not present and the petitioner was made to wait for a considerably long period without a hearing . If this is true we are unhappy about it. If the personal hearing is fixed the Authority must take up the adjudication proceedings on that day or in the alternative give a date to the petitioner which is convenient to both sides. 8] The fact remains that the show cause notice has not yet been adjudicated upon. In the circumstances of the case it is not possible for us to entertain a petition challenging show cause notice. Hence we direct the respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents shall give a fresh date of hearing on which date the petitioner shall appear before the respondent. The respondent shall after hearing the petitioner pass a 8 reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner. Needless to say that all the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits of the case are kept open . Needless to say that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner he can challenge the same in accordance with law. The point raised by the petitioner that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction is also kept open and the respondents shall also deal with this point. 9] We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the show cause notice may be adjudicated independently and in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) 9 S.