SOMNATH IYER, J. - (1.)THESE two writ petitions raise common questions, and so, could be disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 441 of 1966 is a firm called K. O. Krishnaswamy. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 443 of 1966 is another firm called Nagaraja Overseas Traders. Both these firms were proceeded against by the Director of Enforcement Directorate in respect of an accusation that they had contravened the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Central Act VII of 1947). The Director, after setting out the relevant facts concerning that accusation, proceeded to state that the two firms had pleaded guilty to thataccusation, and so, imposed a penalty in the following words: - -
'Accepting their pleas, I find the first two firms, viz., M/s. K. O. Krishnaswamy and M/s. Nagaraja Overseas Traders and their respective partners guilty under Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and, in view of the magnitude of the amounts involved, and the poor realisation of the export proceeds, I impose on either of the firms, a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs each (Total Rs. 6 lakhs).'
Although the Director did find the partners also guilty of the offence with which they are charged, he did not impose any penalty on them individually.
(2.)WE do not accede to the contention of Mr. Srinivasan that there is any obscurity in the language employed by the Director with respect to the question whether the penalty was imposed on both the petitioners or on only one of them. The word 'either' occurring in the relevant part of the Director's order means, in our opinion, each, and, there can be no doubt about it.
We are asked in these writ petitions to quash the penalties so imposed on the firms.

(3.)THE material facts which are not in dispute are these: The two firms sent 52 shipments of art silk fabrices, ready -made garments, handicrafts and sari goods to Singapur and other places under declaration which they made as required by Section 12(1) of the Act in which they stated the value of the goods sold. The finding of the Director was that the statements in those declarations concerning the value of the goods so exported were false, and that there was, what he described, over invoicing with respect to those sales.
;