JUDGMENT

S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. - Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims the following reliefs:-

"(a) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision contained in the letter dated 10th of July 2015 to the extent the Respondent No. 1 has refused the request of the Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 37 of FEMA and whose statements have been relied upon in the complaint;

(b) issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to issue summons to Mr. N. Srinivasan, Mr. Prasanna Kannan, Mr. Sundar Raman, Mr. Chirayu Amin, Mr. Shashank Manohar, Mr. Ratnakar Shetty, Ravi Shankar Shastri, Mr. M. P. Pandove and Mr. Peter Griffith ("the said witnesses") and permit the advocates for the Petitioner to cross examine them;

(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to supply a copy of the reply filed by the other eight Co-Noticees including the BCCI in response to the eleven Show cause Notices issued against the Petitioner and others;

(d) issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold the proceedings with respect to all the eight Noticees in the eleven Show Cause Notices and the proceedings with respect to the State Bank of Travancore (Authorized Dealer) and a party in the complaint at the same time and venue. "

3. The petitioner before us is presently residing in London. He says that he was one of the Vice Presidents of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as "the BCCI"). This board organised a tournament styled as Indian Premier League (hereinafter referred to as "the IPL") and the petitioner was appointed as a Chairman of the governing council of this IPL, which is the sub-committee of the BCCI. However, he continued as the Vice President of the BCCI and Chairman of this IPL till 26th April, 2010.

4. The respondents before us are the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the FEMA"). The first respondent entertained a complaint by the second respondent dated 16th November, 2012. Based on this complaint, the first respondent has issued 11 show cause notices to the petitioner and seven other persons, including the BCCI. The allegations in the show cause notices are with reference to the organisation of this tournament styled as IPL.

However, the petitioner says that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1978 and the Rules framed thereunder. It has a Working Committee and other committees like Finance Committee, Legal Committee and Marketing committee etc. Such committees assist and aid the BCCI in its smooth functioning. The complaint proceeds to allege that office bearers of the BCCI are President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and they are responsible for its affairs. The petitioner narrates as to how the Working Committee met on 13th September, 2007 and it decided to manage the IPL, for which, a sub-committee was formed. In the Annual General Meeting of 28th September, 2007, it was resolved that one Mr. N. Srinivasan, the then Honorary Secretary would open and operate a new bank account in the name of the BCCI-IPL. The petitioner claims that all financial transactions and in relation to BCCI-IPL were the responsibility of Mr. N. Srinivasan. Then, there is a reference made to a Special General Meeting of the BCCI dated 16th December, 2007.

5. The show cause notices are base