S.J. Vazifdar, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the parties rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Special Director and the Assistant Director respectively of the Directorate of Enforcement.

3. Mr. Setalvad, the learned Additional Solicitor General, stated that the respondents did not wish to file an affidavit in reply. He reiterated the statement even during the course of the hearing.

4. The petition in effect challenges the opinion of respondent No.1 under rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the “Adjudication Rules”) to hold an inquiry as to whether the petitioner has contravened the provisions of section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). The “opinion” is referred to in a letter dated 21.03.2013 which is also challenged.

In view of a judgment of the Supreme Court and a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, we have upheld the challenge on the ground that the respondents failed to furnish the documents relied upon by the first respondent in the show cause notice and on the ground that there are