1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1977 OF 1998 PETITION NO.1977 OF 1998 PETITION NO.1977 OF 1998 Shri Shri Shri Dhirendra N. Sheth Dhirendra N. Sheth Dhirendra N. Sheth ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs Union Union Union of India & ors ... of India & ors ... of India & ors ... Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.Ashok Mr.Ashok Mr.Ashok Singh Singh Singh i/b Haresh Mehta & Co for i/b Haresh Mehta & Co for i/b Haresh Mehta & Co for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Mr.A.H.Bhatija Mr.A.H.Bhatija Mr.A.H.Bhatija with Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Ms.S.V.Bharucha and and and Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao for Respondents for Respondents for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and and and V.C.Daga, V.C.Daga, V.C.Daga, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : : : 27th June, 2007 27th June, 2007 27th June, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and and and respondents. respondents. respondents. 2.2.2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging By this petition, the petitioner is challenging By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the the the order dated 29th December, 1997 to the extent order dated 29th December, 1997 to the extent order dated 29th December, 1997 to the extent that that that it sets aside earlier order dated 14th it sets aside earlier order dated 14th it sets aside earlier order dated 14th November, November, November, 1996 passed by the Special Director of 1996 passed by the Special Director of 1996 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement Directorate, Bombay dropping charges Directorate, Bombay dropping charges Directorate, Bombay dropping charges against against against the the the petitioner and remanding the matter for petitioner and remanding the matter for petitioner and remanding the matter for a fresh fresh fresh finding as regarding the petitioner without finding as regarding the petitioner without finding as regarding the petitioner without giving giving giving any notice of hearing whatsoever. We have any notice of hearing whatsoever. We have any notice of hearing whatsoever. We have perused perused perused the the the earlier order dated 14th December, 1997 earlier order dated 14th December, 1997 earlier order dated 14th December, 1997 wherein wherein wherein the petitioner has been totally absolved the petitioner has been totally absolved the petitioner has been totally absolved and and and the respondent-revenue did not challenge the the respondent-revenue did not challenge the the respondent-revenue did not challenge the said said said order at all. Under a purported suo moto order at all. Under a purported suo moto order at all. Under a purported suo moto appeal, appeal, appeal, the said order could not have been set the said order could not have been set the said order could not have been set 2 aside aside aside without even giving show cause notice to the without even giving show cause notice to the without even giving show cause notice to the petitioner. petitioner. petitioner. 3.3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable Learned counsel for the respondents is unable Learned counsel for the respondents is unable toto to justify the action of the respondents. Under justify the action of the respondents. Under justify the action of the respondents. Under these these these circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of of of prayer clause (a). prayer clause (a). prayer clause (a). (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, J) J) J) (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J) J) J)