IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 22002 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHACKO V.JOSEPH, S/O.V.C.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT VADAKKEMATTATHIL, PUDUPPADI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS C.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, WAFA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, V.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, WAFA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, V.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 4TH FLOOR, THARAKKANDAM BUILDING, BANERJEE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. BY SRI. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY ` DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.22002 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The police detained a car, in which a huge amount of Rupees 88 lakhs was being transported. The amount was seized and the persons traveling in the car were arrested by the police. Later on the amount and the persons were handed over to the enforcement authorities suspecting the violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the money approached the police who informed him that the money and the arrested persons were handed over to the Enforcement Director, Kozhikode. The petitioner is stated to have approached the 2nd respondent, who is stated to have refused to consider the petitioner's claim on the ground that the statements of the arrested persons were to the effect that the money belongs to one Chacko Thomas and not the petitioner, who is Chacko Joseph. The petitioner's contention is that in so far as he is in a position to approve that the money belongs to him, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider his claim in accordance with W.P(C)No.22002 of 2008 - 2 - law. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records leading up to Ext.P5 to quash the same in so far the same rejects the claim of the petitioner; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to record the statement of the petitioner in the presence of a lawyer and to pass consequential orders releasing the amount claimed by the petitioner;” 2. The Assistant Solicitor General, on instructions, submits that in so far as the persons who have been arrested did not mention the petitioner's name at any time, the petitioner is not a person entitled to have any say in the matter. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Whether the claim of the petitioner is right or wrong, in so for as he claims that he is in a position to prove his case, the 2nd respondent has a duty to consider his claim in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner including an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his claim and to pass orders on his claim, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from W.P(C)No.22002 of 2008 - 3 - the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The rejection of the petitioner's claim by Ext.P5 shall not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent considering the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, that shall not preclude the 2nd respondent from considering as to whether the discrepancy in the names would adversely affect the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs