R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1748 of 2017 challenging the dismissal of the said Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge on 02.03.2017.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent in the appeal issued a show cause notice to the appellant and others on 27.02.2015, alleging certain contraventions of the provisions of Section 3(a) and 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The appellant sent a reply to the said show cause notice on 19.06.2015. After the receipt of the reply, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.11.2016 requiring the appellant to appear for a personal hearing on 24.11.2016 at 14.00 hours. It is this notice that is challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court.

3. The sum and substance of the contentions of the appellant before the Writ Court were that the Authority viz. the 2nd respondent chose to issue a notice for personal hearing dated 04.11.2016 without adhering to Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. According to the appellant, Rule 4 requires the 2nd respondent to form an opinion on the objections raised by the petitioner in its explanation dated 19.06.2015 and record his reasons for taking further proceedings. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the reasons so recorded should be communicated to the petitioner to enable him to understand the scope of the impending enquiry. According to the petitioner, the non-recording of reasons and its non- communication is fatal to the proceedings, hence the impugned proceedings dated 04.11.2016 should be quashed by issue of a Writ of Certiorari.

4. The claim in the Writ Petition was resisted by the respondents, contending that the interpretation placed by the petitioner on Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 is erroneous. All that is required by the said Rule is that the adjudicating Authority viz. the 2nd respondent should form an opinion on the explanation of the noticee and if the Authority concludes that despite the explanation offered, a further enquiry should be undertaken, he shall issue a notice fixing the date for appearance of the noticee. The Rule, according to the respondents, does not in its terms require recording of reasons which are the foundation for the formation of the opinion regarding further proceedings and communication of the same to the noticee.

5. It was also contended that sub-Rule 4 of Rule 4 makes it obligatory on the part of the adjudicating Authority to explain to the noticee or his legal practitioner or his chartered accountants, the contraventions alleged to have been committed indicating the provisions of the Act or the Rules in respect of which, the contravention is alleged to have taken place. Therefore, according to the respondents, the requirement of communication of the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion to proceed with further enquiry contemplated under sub-rule 3 of Rule 4 cannot be read into the provisions.

6. The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition along with other cases, after elaborate discussions of the rival contentions with reference to the provisions of the Rules, concluded that such a requirement of communication of the reasons which forms the basis of the opinion are not mandatory. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the adjudicating Authority had furnished the petitioners a copy of his proceedings dated 04.11.2016, wherein, he had, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioners concluded that the contents of the complaint and the reply necessitate an in-depth examination and that an enquiry should be held in this case. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that this would satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal