-7 lJ A/ 4- 10&11 {. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8888/2008, C.M. No.1707412008 (Stav) W.P.(C)8 8 89/2008, C.M.No. I 7 07 6 12008 (Stav) A.S. ANEJA @AMARJIT SINGH ANEJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Narang with Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocates. versus LINION OF INDIA & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT ORDER 06.01.2009 In these Writ Petitions, an order dated 27.8.2008 made in Review Petition No.51 & 52 arising out of appeal Nos.1/2007 8. 212007 before the appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange under the Foreign Exchange and Management Act, 1999 has been challenged. For the purpose of these proceedings, it would be sufficient to notice that the petitioner was proceeded against under the Act and pursuant to different show cause notices. The adjudicating authority, by orders made on separate dates, imposed penalties to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs respectively. Since Section 52 (2) of the FERA, 1973 readwith Section 19 (1) of the FEMA mandates pre-deposit of the quantum oh a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 'a +t { tr.P.rct 8888/2008 & W.P.(O 8889/2008 imposed, the petitioner felt aggrieved and sought for complete waiver on the ground of undue hardship in accordance with its proviso' The Tribunal by its order dated 12.2.2007 rejected the application for waiver. The petitioner went back and sought review of the order. The Tribunal appears to have disposed of the Review Petitions. Subsequently upon the initiation of recovery proceedings in respect of the amount, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal with application claiming that he had not received the order disposing of his review petitions. By the impugned order, the Tribunal observed that there was no need to re-fix the appeals for hearing and indicated that the review petitions had been disposed of on 1.9.2007. The Tribunal also dealt with the contentions that the petitioner had not received the order dismissing the review dated 7.9.2007 but desired that the appeals would be consigned to the records. It is evident from the discussion and the order dated 27.8.2008 that the Tribunal was made aware of the fact that the petitioner did not receive its order disposing of the review on7.9.2007. The petitioner's grievance also is the same in these proceedings. There cannot be any denial that the right to be heard and right to challenge the review order are valuable rights. The facts here clearly point to the petitioner being in the dark about the fate of his review petition. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal should within two weeks from today make available copies of its order disposing of the a f,t? r w.P.c) 8885/2008 & W.P.(Ct 8889/2008 \ review, on7.9.2007. For that purpose, the petitionerlhis counsel shall be present before the Registrar of the Tribunal on 19th January, 2009. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 7.9.2007 if he is aggrieved. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti. ;r CM No.17075/2008 in W.P. (C) 8888/2008 (Exemption) -= Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. in W.P. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. JANUARY 06,2oo9 tvdt I 1",.,J&^5, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J --