V. Savarimuthu vs Special Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Another

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.—The matter comes up for orders regarding maintainability. Against the order impugned in this revision under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has the remedy of and ought to have resorted to a regular appeal before the Foreign Exchange

Regulation Appellate Board u/s 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (46 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', He has not done so.

On the ground that the impugned order ignores the policy of the Government and certain instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,

the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution, It is a power of

superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. By now, it has been settled

by pronouncements of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could properly resort to and exercise the powers under Article 227. The

well accepted contingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are:

(i) lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdicion;

(ii) grave dereliction of duty or flagrent violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of

law or an erroneous decision of law;

(iii) violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iv) perverse finding founded on no material whatever and;

(v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion.

I am not able to spell out that this a case where one or more of the above contingencies exist. In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, of the Constitutions it has been observed as follows:

A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory

jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or Tribunal functions within

the limits of its authority�.

Furthermore, I do not get any convincing explanation set out anywhere in the papers filed in this case as to why the petitioner could not resort to

the appellate process, This court under Article 227 does not assume and exercise appellate or revisional powers even on a question of law, The

impugned order is dated 27th June, 1984, and there is no special circumstance pleaded even for approaching this Court so belatedly under Article

227, assuming there is a case for exercise of such power. The petitioner did not have an adequate alternative remedy of a statutory appeal and this

remedy is more comprehensive than the one under Article 227. If he did not avail of the same, he cannot so naively, so the absence of

extraordinary and special circumstances seek the process under Article 227, The petitioner has to blame himself for the position in which he is

placed and the situation which he is now facing. I must also take note of the fact that as against the decision of the Appellate Board u/s 52 of the

Act, there is a further remedy u/s 54 of the Act.

In the said circumstances, the revision cannot be maintained and accordingly the same is rejected.