- (1.) Calling in question the legal penetrability of the order dated April 12, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Delhi in Writ Petition Nos. 7606 of 2003, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1344 and 1345 of 2004 by a common judgment, the present batch of appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution has been filed.
(2.) Though prayers in different writ petitions were couched differently, yet the three basic reliefs which were sought before the High Court are Rule 5 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (Recruitment, Salary and Allowances and Other Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is ultra vires the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for brevity 'the Act); for quashment of certain notifications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, appointing part time Members of the Appellate Tribunal by issue of a writ of quo warranto as they did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the Act; and further to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 to act as the Chairperson as he was a part time Member and also was not eligible to hold the post.
(3.) It was urged before the High Court that the Rule travels beyond the scope and ambit of the Act and, in fact, directly runs counter to the provisions in the Act and, therefore, deserves to be declared as ultra vires. It was canvassed that when the Act did not conceive of part time Members, even a person meeting the eligibility criteria could not be appointed as a part time Member. It was further propounded before the High Court that a part time Member who was disqualified to hold the post could not have been allowed to act as the Chairperson as that would destroy the spirit of the Act. To bolster the said submissions, the petitioners before the High Court placed reliance on Chander Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1967 1 SCR 77 Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India and others, 1992 2 SCC 428 and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners Association and others, 1998 2 SCC 688.;