No interference by High Court is required.

Raju, J.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.8.1993 in W.P. No.16175 of 1993, where under the learned single Judge has issued directions as hereunder, while finally disposing of the main writ petition, even at the stage of hearing for admission, on hearing the counsel for the 1st respondent herein/ writ petitioner:

“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the affidavit filed herein, without going into the merits of the case, I think it suffice to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s petition filed under Sec.52 of the . Act for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, on merits and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order, if the same has not been disposed of already, till such time, the further proceedings before the Additional Chief Metro- politan Magistrate’s Court in S.O.C.C. No.309 of 1993 shall stand stayed. However, it is open to the said Magistrate to proceed further, if the respondents are able to establish that the petitioner’s application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty has given a disposal. Ordered accordingly. No costs.”

2. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the issue raised before us are that, for the alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, herein after referred to as ‘The Act’ the respondent was proceeded against and apart from ordering the confiscation of the seized Indian currency of Rs.50,000 a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 (Five lakhs) came to be imposed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation) Act, New Delhi by his order dated 8. 1990. As per the said order, the penalty imposed should be paid at the office of the Enforcement Directorate by means of a Demand Draft in favour of the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras-6. within 45 days of receipt of the order. There is no controversy over the position that the said order of adjudication was duly served on the respondent and he also further filed an appeal to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board on 9. 1990, stated to have been registered also as Appeal FERA.B/683-1990- as per communication dated 26. 1992 from the Assistant Registrar of the Board and the appeal is still pending. According to the respondent, along with the said appeal he also filed an application to dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalty under Sec.52 of the Act and the Appellate Board has not passed any orders on the said petition also. In the meantime, after giving a notice dated 29. 1990, calling upon the respondent to remit the penalty within 10 days, on threat of action under Sec.57 of the Act, which was acknowledged by the respondent on 10. 1990. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras also filed a complaint under Sec.57 of the Act before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences, Egmore, Madras-8 and the respondent was served with summons, dated 17. 1993 in the said proceedings in E.O.C.C. No.309 of 1993.

3. It was at that stage the respondent filed W.P. No. 16178 of 1993 and the learned Judge gave directions as noticed supra. The Department has filed that above appeal contending among other things, that the learned single judge ought to have seen that the pendency of proceedings by way of appeal under Sec.52 of the Act would not in any manner debar the prosecution under Sec.57 of the Act and the officers of the Department are obliged to and are enjoined by law to act as it has been done in this case. It is also contended that there is no interaction between the proceedings under Sec.52 and Sec.57 nor could it be stated that action under Sec.57 of the Act is interdependent on Sec.52. Notice has been ordered to the respondents and the respondent who has been served also is represented by counsel before us. We have heard the lea