- (1.) This is a writ petition filed by one Simon F. Pinto against the order dated 8-1-1979 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). That order was passed in Appeal No. 26 of 1977 before the Board. The petitioner preferred the said appeal against the order dated 11th Oct., 1976 (signed on 16th Oct., 1976) by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Madras, holding the appellant guilty of contravention of the provisions of S. 4(1) and S. 4(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (sic) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Board took the view that the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed under S. 52 of the Act and dismissed the same.
(2.) Sri B. M. Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the Board was not correct in rejecting the appeal which was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. He has further contended that the Board ought to have condoned the delay having regard to the poverty of the petitioner. In order to substantiate the second contention, he has today filed a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay before the Board. In the said affidavit, he has claimed to be a poor person. He has indicated that his income is about Rs. 450 per mensem (counsel submits that it is on monthly basis). However, a perusal of para 3 of the same affidavit clearly indicates the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time. It is very strange that the petitioner has not taken advantage of sub-clause (2) of S. 52 of the Act which provided for an appeal being filed without the deposit of penalty subject to an application being made in that behalf praying for dispensation of payment of penalty or in the alternative paying the same in instalments. His affidavit also discloses that he was in correspondence with the Assistant Director at Madras regarding the payment of penalty and does not appear to have contemplated filing of an appeal when he first addressed the Assistant Director in the matter of payment of penalty. It is only on 30-11-1976 that he reminded the 1st respondent-Assistant Director that the period for appeal would lapse on 12-12-1976. Even on that date had he presented the appeal he would have been in time and the appeal could have been sent by post.
(3.) In my opinion, the delay in filing the appeal before the Board has not been properly explained even on the facts stated in the affidavit.;