The right to speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to have a quasi-criminal charge adjudicated within a reasonable period of time, and the delay in the adjudication process can lead to the quashing of the show cause notice and dropping of the adjudication proceeding.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. The petitioner prays for quashing of a show cause notice dated 14 January, 1991 issued by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India on the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the adjudication arising out of the said show cause notice causing worry, anxiety, expenses and disturbance to his vocation and peace of mind. As stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has not gone into the merits or demerits of the show cause notice and has limited his challenge to the arbitrary conduct of the adjudication proceeding under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short “FERA”).

2. Case of the Petitioner:-

A show cause notice was issued against Girdharilal Mehta (since deceased) and against one S.C. Mehta under Section 50 of the FERA calling upon the noticees to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under the said Act for alleged contravention of Section 8 (1) of FERA read with Sections 64(2) and 51 thereof. There is no one by the name of S.C. Mehta in the petitioner’s family. However, the notice was sent to the address of the petitioner who is S.G. Mehta. The petitioner reasonably assumed that S.C. Mehta was a mis-description of the petitioner.

3. Prior to issuance of the show cause notice, on January 15, 1990, the premises of Thomas Duff Company were searched under Section 37 of FERA and some documents were seized by the authorities. A further search was undertaken on January 18, 1990. The statements of G.L. Mehta and S.G. Mehta (writ petitioner) were recorded on February 12, 1990. The petitioner gave his reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated February 15, 1991.

4. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the adjudication proceeding under Section 51 of FERA has not proceeded since then. The entire proceeding is at a nascent stage. The respondent no. 2 issued letters in connection with the proceeding in 1993, 1999, 2000, 2005 and 2015. Upon receipt of each letter, the petitioner made a written request for supply of documents which were relied upon for the purpose of issuance of the show cause notice. In spite of receipt of such written requests, the respondent authorities remain silent until issuance of the subsequent letter after several years.

5. No further step beyond issuance of the show cause notice has been taken by the respondent authorities. There is no adjudication and no hearing has been held in connection with the proceeding. This has been put on record by the learned advocates of the petitioner in their letters dated 17 May, 2005, 27 February, 2015, 10 March, 2015 and 11 March, 2015.

6. During the pendency of the proceeding, Mr. G.L. Mehta, one of the noticees passed away on July 4, 1998. Hence, the proceeding has abated against him. The FERA has been repealed with effect from June 1, 2000 with a sun set clause for two years which came to an end on June 1, 2002. No proceeding can be initiated under FERA after May 31, 2002. The adjudication is yet to start. The proceeding does not survive also by reason of repeal of FERA.

7. In the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is admitted that no document has been supplied to the petitioner. There is absolutely no explanation as to why there has been a delay of 26 years in proceeding with the adjudication process. No case has been made out even prima facie as to why the show cause notice should be proceeded with against the writ petitioner. The challenge in the writ petition is to the inordinate delay in proceeding with the show cause notice causing immense prejudice to the writ petitioner and also for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that it is an abuse of the process of law. The authorities have failed to disclose or supply to the petitioner copies of relevant documents forming the basis of the show cause notice. An unnecessary show cause notice is being pursued against the petitioner w