Tamori Textiles Private Limited vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2008

IN THE HIGH comer or HAP .m2.IAKA,  M   *   L

IN WP No ;'cié:s:§i:0§?   V'

-1-

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY'i"QI3"'.j;)}§,§CEM I3£*.3.¥€A,  

BEEbREA 

THE HON'BLE MRf.JUSTIC§ 'R}&.!J M(5HAN"'§EDDY

WRIT PETITION  20455  (GM-RES)
R
EN.?0RcEzv:§.fNT DIRECTORATE
GOV«ERI\fMENT OF' INDIA

  BANGALGRE ZONAL OFFICE
u 'ir~3Q.9/ 1,45/IASRAS BANK ROAD
 ' ..f§BEH:.ND INDIA GARAGE')
 BANGALORE»;
  ...RESPONDEN'I'S

   V   '_{By.§.§3i4i": N DEVHADASS, Sr. COUNSEL FOR ASG }

THIS WRYI' PETITION IS FILE}? UNDER ARTKILES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONS'I'§'I'UT§ON OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT R3 TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO

 _ é
I:AA"*K

  . '  jI?ri*i*§9j*it3:§IERs V'



..8..

violation of the relevant provision   "  
of the FERA as sought to he"mad.e out':
notice. As pointed oat  the learn 

Additions} Soilcltor (}_en_era1foa  or
the appellants to show_iV:' that they.'  the
requisite permission, Will" have to
be lodged before 'é:_he_' L-coIicei'ried.v"1:;eagistrate --
of this   these appeals - and the

z11ag3EstI'at;eci"i)ifi}i. cot1sid--e1' vcfhether the process

here it has with  permission

Should' oiibthe 'basis of the complaint
iziade ----In' View of the fact that
suflficient  will be available to the
appellants  -V put it their contentions
befofe the   court, it cannot
be said   merit in the challenge

fipto the  finder Section 61 of the

 'I'he'=.saiai' riotices are really in terms of

 se:::z;o:;iii61p of"the FERA and their scope and
I     eontroiled by Section 6} of the
   on receipt of those notices, it was

 .ir}peIi--:'..to"'the appellants to show that they had

in "necessary permission from the concerned
Q aathority under the Act. Of course, if they do

not have such permission, apparently, in the

. 2 MK
.3;



-9-

case on hand, there was no such _perinissio11," 
they have necessariiy towput  their 
defences before the coufl: _:'i:1" 
prosecutions that have been   Vi
behalf." ' i  
6. In   the petitioners
contention that   are invaiid, is

withoutmCFit;"s;~.ttf'.    

 jm-iii:  pe:i?::isnsiit'r'iiare dismissed. The
prosecutions,   isunched by the respondents

pursuant”‘i;oV’theV’:11odif[ed interim order, it is needless to

petitioners are entitled to advance their

t,.”Vef’e:f:.:ce_i ~i%’1Vs._ the prosecution and the Magistrate

concemetifis directed to consider whether process to be

issuedvion the basis of the complaint made before him.

55?”.-

fzzfigé

Ln.