IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15847 of 2008 Between: Ilyas Moosa S/o.Moosa Pr.No.5,APHB Commercial Complex M.J.Road,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Enforcement Directorate, Govt of India., rep.by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate 3rd floor, Shakkar Bhavan Fatehmaidan Road, Basheerbagh Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directoate (Forein Exchange Management Act) Govt of India., Pr.No.9/1 State Bank Road, (Behind India Garriage) Bangalore 3 The Appellate Tribunal, Foreing Exchange, 4th floor B- Wing,Janpath Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent No.1 in not releasing the amount of Rs.8,79,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. to the petitioner as bad illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to release an amount of Rs.8,79,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure i.e. 19.2.2001 till release of amount to the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Ilyas Moosa with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, represented by Deputy Director-1st respondent in not releasing the amount of Rs.8,79,000/- and interest thereon at 6% p.a., as illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent-authority searched the business premises of the petitioner on 19.2.2001 and seized a sum of Rs.10,29,000/- and certain documents. An enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent passed an adjudication order No.DD/16- 19/BZ/HYD/2003FEMA observing that the seizure of amount of Rs.10,29,000/- is in no way connected with the charge framed under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, however, directed adjustment of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- from the seized amount of Rs.10,29,000/- and thus, a sum of Rs.8,79,000/- was ordered to be released to the petitioner. Against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent preferred a revision petition No.673 of 2003 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. The revision ended in dismissal. Thereupon, the 1st respondent ﬁled C.M.A.No.2882 of 2004 assailing the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The said CMA ended in dismissal on 8.3.2007. After dismissal of the CMA, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 9.4.2007 for release of Rs.8,79,000/-. There being no action on the representation, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for Directorate of Enforcement, received notice on behalf of R1 and R2 and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the case of the petitioner has been sent for approval to the Head Oﬃce at New Delhi for administrative clearance. Para 2 of the counter-affidavit reads as under: “It is submitted that as per the instructions of the Head Oﬃce of the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, vide Circular No. TECH.8/2003 dated 27/28.08.2003, the matter of refund of the seized amount has been referred to our Head Oﬃce at New Delhi on 13.08.2007 for administrative clearance for release of the seized amount to the petitioner. A reminder dated 30.07.2008 has been sent to our Head Oﬃce in the matter. The matter of release of the seized amount to the petitioner is being attended to on urgent basis and the seized amount will be released to the petitioner immediately after receiving the clearance from our Head Office. It is further submitted that there is no willful delay in release of the seized amount to the petitioner and only administrative procedures are being followed.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for Directorate of Enforcement appearing for R1 and R2. Since the proposal has already been sent to the Head Oﬃce of the Directorate of Enforcement for administrative clearance for release of the seized amount, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1 st and 2nd respondent to release the amount of Rs.8,79,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., as provided under Rule 8 of Foreign Exchange Management (Encashment of Draft, Cheque, Instrument and Payment of Interest) Rules, 2000, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ________ 5-8-2008 Note: Issue CC by one week. (B.O)rkk