NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE WERE VOID AS THEY WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THERE WAS NO VALID INITIATION OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT.

( 1 ) IN this application the petitioner challenges two notices dated the 13th February, 1975 and the 4th August, 1976 respectively issued by the Enforcement Directorate on the basis of violation of certain provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947/73. Two similar notices in identical terms one bearing the same date and other a different one were challenged before me in the case of Saroj Kumar Bhotika v. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, Cabinet Secretariat, Deptt. of Personnel and A. R. Govt. of India being Matter No. 486 of 1975.

( 2 ) BY my judgment dated 18th January, 1977, I struck down the said two notices on the grounds fully set out in my judgment.

( 3 ) MR. Noni Coomar Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute that so far as the merits of the present petition are concerned they are fully covered by my judgment in Matter No. 486 of 1975 and the Rule should be made absolute on that ground. He however submitted that in view of the provisions of the amended Article 226 of the Constitution of India as introduced by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 the present petition is not maintainable and I should hold it to be so.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Chakraborty it would be useful to set out the relevant provisions of the amended Article 226 which are as follows:--"226 (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 but subject to the provisions of Article 131-A and Article 226-A. every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases. any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo war-ranto and certiorari. or any of them,-- (a) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III; or (b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the con-travention of any other provision of this Constitution or any provision of any enactment or Ordinance or any order, rule, regulation, by-law or other instrument made thereunder; or (c) for the redress of any injury of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in Sub-clause (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) No petition for the redress of any injury referred to in Sub-clause (b) or Sub- Clause (c) of Clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force. " Relying on the above provisions of amended Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Chakraborty submitted that in the present Rule there is no allegation that any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India has been violated. As such the case does not come under the provisions of Article 226 (1) (a ). It must therefore come either under Article 226 (1) (b) or Article 226 (1) (c ).

( 5 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that in order that the case may come under Article 226 (1) (b) there must be an injury of a substantial nature before the petitioner can maintain the present application. It was submitted that in the instant case there was no injury of any substantial nature. All that had happened is that the Foreign Exchange Authorities had decided that a prima facie case existed for an adjudication and had issued a show cause notice. It was entirely open for the petitioner to appear before the Authorities and show cause that they had not committed any offence as alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore I should hold that there has been no substantial injury caused to the petitioner at the present stage.

( 6 ) SIMILARLY, it was submitted that in order to bring the petitioner's case under the provisions o