JUDGMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J -In view of the detailed orders passed by this court from time to time, the writ petition is admitted.

2. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of all parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is finally disposed of by this judgment.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prior to its amendment, the petitioner desires that this court should issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction analogous to that writ, directing respondent no. 1 to this writ petition to guide the petitioner in making of an application styled as an application for compounding and to take on file and determine the compounding application within the time frame prescribed by the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Compounding Rules") or such other time frame as may be prescribed by this court.

4. Then, prayer clause (b) claims the following relief:-

"(b) that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of prohibition, restraining the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding with adjudication proceedings in the SCN No.F.No.T-4/2D/2015 dated 13 November 2015 until the decision of Respondent No. 1 on the compounding applications which will be filed by the Petitioner after guidance is forthcoming."

5. It is in pursuance of this prayer clause, which we have reproduced, that the petitioner amended the writ petition and sought the following reliefs:-

"(a1) wholly in the alternative to prayer clause (a), that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and after going through the same and examining the legality thereof to quash and/or cancel the letters/orders dated 24 January 2017 addressed by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner purporting to return compounding applications on grounds that ''guidance'' is liable to be sought thereon by the Petitioner;

(a2) that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and after going through the same and examining the legality thereof to quash and cancel the letter/order/direction dated 6 March 2017 issued/passed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 in relation to the compounding applications of the Petitioner;

(a3) that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and after going through the same and examining the legality thereof to quash and cancel the Order sheet/Hearing Note dated 20 April 2017 passed by Respondent No. 2;

(a4) that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to strike down and declare that the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 inserted vide 2017 Notification introduced by the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Amendment Rules, 2017, ultra vires, unconstitutional, non est and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

(a5) that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and after going through the same and examining the legality thereof to quash and cancel the letters dated 15 December 2018 and 1 January 2018 issued by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner in relation to seek guidance from the AD Bank;

(a6) that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction analogous to the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and after going through the same and examini