Reserve Bank of India is bound to issue notice to judgment-debtor.

While the petitioner herein was carrying on business in Burma, he executed two promissory notes in favour of one V. R. Manickam, and, thereafter in March, 1965, he came to India. The said V. R. Manickam assigned the promissory notes in favour of the second respondent herein, who filed O. S. No. 500 of 1965, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sivaganga, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was residing. The petitioner in his defence put forward a contention that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the Burma Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, am. that in any event, only a conditional decree could be passed under that Act. The learned District Munsif, overruled the defence and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the second respondent herein applied to the first respondent for permission under section 21 (3) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for executing the decree and that permission was granted to the second respondent by an order dated 11th January, 1967. Armed with this permission, the second respondent sought to execute the decree and the petitioner’s objection was overruled. Against the order of the executing Court overruling the objection of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 1967, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, and that appeal also was dismissed on 12th December, 1967. It is at this stage the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India on 11th January, 1967 to the second respondent to execute the decree obtained by him against the petitioner herein.

During the pendency of the Writ petition, the petitioner preferred A.A.A.O. No. 99 of 1968, (Ramiah-Appellant v. Karuppiah Servai-Respondent), against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga made in C.M.A. No. 31 of 1967, to which. I had made reference already. This appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself by Alagiriswami, J. The contention that was put forward before the learned Judge was that section 21 (3) (c) of the Act contemplated an obligation on the part of the Reserve Bank of India to give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor before granting permission to the decree-holder for executing the decree. The learned Judge overruled this contention. The learned Judge, after referring to the provision contained in section 21 (3) (c) of the Act stated that the provision was merely for the purpose of enabling the authority granting permission to satisfy itself as to whether the permission should be granted and also to have the necessary materials for the purpose of so deciding. The learned Judge was of the view that it was not obligatory on the authority granting permission to give notice either to a judgment-debtor or to a creditor and that it does not speak of an opportunity being given to either of them and that the provision only enables the authority competent to grant the permission to ask either the judgment-debtor or the creditor to produce documents or to give information. The learned Judge held that it was only an enabling provision and not a provision which confers any right either on the judgment-debtor, or on the creditor. It is in this view the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.

In the present writ petition, Mr. V. N. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the power to grant permission conferred on the Reserve Bank of India under section 21 (3) (c) of the Act is coupled with a duty and, therefore, the Reserve Bank of India ought to have given notice to the petitioner herein before granting the permission to the second respondent. Alternatively, the learned Counsel contends that the principles of natural justice require that the petitioner should have been heard before the permission asked for by the second