THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :714 of 2008 DATED:22-01-2008 BETWEEN: Shaik Faiyyaz. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus setting aside the impugned notice No.A/2934/2005, dated 31-12-2007, as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently suspending the operation of the said notice. 3. A perusal of the said notice, and the judgment of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai in E.G.C.C.No.2 of 2002, dated 08-04-2002, go to show that the Special Director of Enforcement, New Delhi passed an order, dated 27-01-1995, under Section 9(1) (b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Relief Act, 1973 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) imposing a penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- each for each of the contraventions, i.e., a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- penalty was imposed. For non-payment of the said amount the penal provision punishing him under Section 57 r/w sub-Sections 3 and 4 of Section 49 of the Act apply. Prosecution was launched against the petitioner by the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai in E.G.C.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai. A lenient view was taken and instead of imposing civil imprisonment a fine of Rs.5000/- alone was imposed, in default to undergo three months imprisonment. It is stated that against the order of the Special Director, Enforcement, New Delhi in imposing penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- by order, dated 27-01-1995, an appeal has been filed in 1997 before the appellate authority. As the things stand as on today, there is a liability to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and unless the petitioner obtains any such orders before the appellate authority, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as the said notice issued is only to implement the recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore the Writ Petition is misconceived. 4. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 22nd January, 2008. Tsy