K.M. MOHAMMED SHAFI V. UNION OF INDIA

RP/217/2016

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by K.M. Mohammed Shafi and others against the Union of India and its various departments, challenging the judgment in W.A. No.1960 of 2015. The petitioners argued that the previous judgment referred to a Madras High Court decision which was already approved by the Supreme Court, and claimed there was a violation of natural justice as the Appellate Authority did not provide a speaking order. The court, however, found that the appellate order was indeed a speaking order and addressed all the contentions raised, thus dismissing the review petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722373 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santhosh Kumar v. State of U.P and others [AIR 1970 SC 1302]
• Laws Referred To: FEMA
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHANKAR NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSHI THOMAS
• Keywords: Natural Justice; Quasi-Judicial Order; Quasi-Judicial Order; Review petition; Speaking order
• Section: 1302

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938 RP.No. 217 of 2016 () IN WA.1960/2015 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1960/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-02-2016 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. K.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, KOTTACKAL HOUSE MELPARAMBU VILLAGE, KALANADU P.O., KALANADU KASARGODU TALUK - 671 317. 2. ABDULLA @ ABDULLA KUNHI S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, DELI HOUSE, MELPARAMBU CHEMNADU VILLAGE, KALANADU P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT KERALA - 671 317. 3. ABDUL LATHEEF @ C.B.LATHEEF S/O. ABBAS, GARDEN VILLA, MELPARAMBU P.O. KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA - 671 317. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (FEMA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI - 110 003. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (FEMA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK B.M.T.C, T.T.M.C BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR K.H ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (FEMA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK B.M.T.C TTMC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. 5. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR (APPEALS) SOUTH ZONE (FEMA) & COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NO. 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBACKAM, CHENNAI -600 034. R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J -------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 217 of 2016 in W.A. No.1960 of 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016 O R D E R Ashok Bhushan, CJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This review application has been filed seeking review of our judgment dated 12.2.2016 in W.A. No.1960 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involves both questions of fact and law. The judgment needs review since the judgment of High Court of Madras which has been referred to in the judgment and distinction was already approved by the Apex Court. 3. It is further contended that there is violation of natural justice since there was no speaking order by the Appellate Authority. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santhosh Kumar v. State of U.P and others [AIR 1970 SC 1302] for the proposition that if the order is quasi judicial order, it must be a speaking order. 4. The submissions, which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the review petition were considered. The judgment of Madras High Court, which has R.P. No.217/16 2 been referred to were considered and it was also noticed that certain proposition laid down in the judgment of Madras High Court were approved by the Apex Court. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding violation of principles of natural justice was also dealt with. The proposition which has been laid down by the Apex Court that all quasi judicial orders have to be speaking order is well established proposition of law. The appellate order passed by the statutory authority was under challenge. The appellate order which was passed by the Special Director (Appeals) was an order running in 17 paragraphs, where the facts of the case and contentions were noted. It cannot be said that the order was a non-speaking order. Therefore on the said ground also, we are not satisfied that any case for review of judgment arise. The review petition is dismissed. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sou.23/3. // True copy // "