Shri C. Sampath Kumar v. The Special Director Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 5957 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Shri C. Sampath Kumar Son Of V.M. Chellappa F-B2 Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai 600 058 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Special Director Of Enforcement Enforcement Directorate Government Of India 6thfloor Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi 110 003 2.The Deputy Director Of Enforcement Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, 3rd Floor, 3rd Block 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 60006 Respondent(s)
PRAYER calling for the records of the first respondent made in order No.SDE/PKD/IV/01/2009 dated 07.01.2009 in File No.T-4/26/D/95 and quash the same.
For Petitioner:
M/s.B.Satish Sundar N.Balaji S.Baskaran For Respondents:
Mr.N.Ramesh Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi in order No.SDE/PKD/IV/01/2009 dated 07.01.2009 in File No.T-4/26/D/95.
2. Two points were urged by Mr.Satish Sundar, viz., that the adjudicating authorities did not await the result of the criminal proceedings despite being intimated of the same. Secondly, he pleaded that after the impugned order had been passed in this case, the petitioner underwent the ordeal of trial in C.C.No.257 of 1997 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Chennai and had been acquitted from all the charges on 4.6.2014.
3. Mr.Satish wanted me to look into the records and proceed with the writ
petition. I am afraid I cannot accede to such a request for the simple reason that, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not sitting as an appellate authority over the order passed by the respondent. My role is to see whether the authority has jurisdiction, or whether he has violated the principles of natural justice, or whether he has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or left out any relevant material, rendering the order perverse.
4. Since Mr.Satish is heavily placing reliance on the order of acquittal, I feel that the appropriate remedy available to him is to prefer an appeal.
5. A perusal of the papers shows that the order dated 07.01.2009 was served on the writ petitioner only on 21.01.2009. Within the period stipulated in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 9.3.2009. Therefore, I cannot find that there is any laches or delay on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner shall prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, within a period of 15 days from today.
6. In case, the appeal is filed within the above said period, then the Registry of the appellate authority shall number the appeal, without reference to
limitation. If it is open to the petitioner, he is entitled to bring before the appellate authority any new records he so desires. The writ petition is dismissed with the above liberty. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
17-10-2025 ssk.
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Note to office:- Original order filed alongwith the writ petition shall be returned to the counsel on record on making necessary endorsement.
To 1.The Special Director Of Enforcement Enforcement Directorate Government Of India 6thfloor Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi 110 003 2.The Deputy Director Of Enforcement Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, 3rd Floor, 3rd Block 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 60006
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
ssk.
WP No. 5957 of 2009 17-10-2025