M.Hussain Abdul Khader v. The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10 .11.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.9288 of 2009M.Hussain Abdul Khader ... Petitioner Versus1.The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.2.The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006. ... RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to forbear therespondents, their men, or agents, or any one acting and claiming onbehalf of them from arresting, executing the detention order anddetaining the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 1974,pursuant to the detention order passed by the first respondent in1994 in connection with the alleged search and seizure made by thesecond respondent's officers at M/s.Hameeda Jewellers, No.146,N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai 600 001 on 27.06.1994. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Abdul NazeerFor Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani for RR 1 & 2 O R D E RN. KIRUBAKARAN,J.This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to forbearthe respondent from arresting, detaining and executing the detentionorder issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of theConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of SmugglingActivities Act 1974. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The facts of the case are as follows:The officers of the second respondent searched the businesspremises of M/s.Hameeda Jewelers at No.146, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-600 079 and the residential premises belonging to the saidestablishment on 27.6.1994. During the aforesaid search, theofficials of the second respondent seized a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- andcertain documents. They also searched Mr.J.S.M.Khader Riyas andMr.M.Mohamed Abdul Khader who are the relatives of the petitioner. Atthe time of search, the petitioner visited the said shop and theofficials of the second respondent took the aforesaid personsalongwith the petitioner and after obtaining incriminate statementsfrom them they were arrested on 28.6.1994. The said officialsseverely attacked the petitioner to give statement as per theirdictation and after three days, the petitioner was produced alongwith aforesaid two persons before the learned Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egmore, Chennai, who remanded themto custody on the allegations that they were involved in the Businessnamely collecting Dirhams from persons working in Dubi and makingcompensatory payments in Indian currency to persons residing inIndia. Bail petition was filed by the petitioner and he was releasedon bail by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.7.1994subject to certain conditions and the conditions were subsequentlyrelaxed on 21.7.1994. Thereafter all the conditions were completelyrelaxed on 8.8.1994. Meanwhile the respondent department filed apetition for cancellation of bail before this court and the same wasdismissed by an order dated 7.10.1994. 3.The petitioner submitted that he has been residing in hisnative place, at Keelakarai and doing agricultural work and fishbusiness and maintaining his family. The petitioner has beensuffering illness from 1995 and an operation was done in his chestfor removal of a cyst. Consequently he was ridden. Apart from that hewas taking medical treatment for psychological disorder. Whileso inthe last week of April, 2009, the police authorities attached toSuperintendent of Police, Ramnad arrested the aforesaid M.MohamedAbdul Khader and a detention order was issued against him by thefirst respondent in respect of the aforesaid search and seizureconducted at M/s.Hameeda Jewelers by the second respondent. Similarlya detention order dated 7.10.1994 was said to have been passedagainst the petitioner also under Section 3(1) of COPEPOSA Act inconnection withthe aforesaid search and seizure. 4.Pursuant to the detention order passed in 1994apprehending the arrest, the petitioner approached this court for therelief as stated above on the following grounds:1) There is a delay of 15 years in executing the detention order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2) Live link gets snapped on account of delay in passing thedetention order.3) There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay inexecution and the detention order is in-executable.4) No serious efforts were taken by the authorities to detainthe petitioner even though he was residing at his native place.5) The detention order was passed under the Prevention ofForeign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 which was repealed in 2000 andit was replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 which donot contain any provisions for arrest and all the offences aretreated as "Civil Wrong". In view of the change of legal scenario thedetention order is invalid.5.On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed by the firstrespondent denied all the allegations made in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition and reiterated that the petitionerinvolved in "unauthorised transaction in Foreign Exchange" during theperiod from December, 1993 to 24.6.1994 and received a total amountof Rs.4,03,75,000. It is stated by the respondents that Pursuant tothe detention order passed on 7.10.1994, the petitioner wasabsconding from the known address and therefore the executingauthority could not arrest the petitioner as he was absconding fromhis residence. 6.Preliminary objection is raised with regard to themaintainability of the writ petition at the pre-detention stage. Itis stated that the detention order is only to prevent thepetitioner's abuse and prevent the illegal activities. It is statedthat the detention order cannot be quashed on the ground of delay inexecuting the said order and that the detention order has been passedunder the proper Act, against right person, for right purpose, byduly enforced on the specific ground raised before the authority.Respondents have also urged that the petitioner did not participatein the adjudication for which a show cause notice was issued and thathe did not participate in the enquiry nor appeared before the enquiryofficer. The complaint filed under Section 56 of FERA Act 1973 inC.C.No.95 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, E.O.I, Chennai is pending and the petitioner was declaredas proclaimed offenders by order dated 11.5.2004.7. The respondent further contended that without undergoing thedetention order, he cannot seek for the relief as prayed for. It issubmitted that the investigation in this case was commenced on27.6.1994 and after follow up actions, the detention order was passedon 7.10.1994 and as such there was no delay in passing the detentionorder. The detention order could not be executed due to absconding of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused from his known address. The respondent submitted that byconsidering the full of facts including the retraction and subjectivesatisfaction, the detention order was passed against the petitioner.Finally it is submitted that even FERA 1973 was repealed in the year2000 and replaced by Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999, there isa saving clause in Section 49 of the Act itself that any action takenunder the old Act, would continue and therefore the petitionercannot escape from the liability in the adjudication proceedings andcriminal proceedings initiated by the respondents.8.Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the order was passed as early as on 7.10.1994 andafter a long delay of 15 years the detention order is sought to beexecuted and the delay is fatal to the detention order and that thereis no "live link" on account of the delay in passing and executingthe detention order. He relied upon the following judgements of theHon'ble Supreme Court and this court:1)AIR 1988 SC 2252)1992(2) SCC 2953)1999(4) SCC 1164)1998(8) SCC 3435)2000 SCC (Crl.) 4116)1988 LW Crl. 477)1991 LW Crl8)1990 Law Weekly (Crl.) 1889.Preliminary issue was raised by the respondent regardingmaintainability of writ petition at the pre-detention stage, in viewof law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Additional Secretaryto the Government of India versus. Smt. Alka Subbash Gadia andanother reported in 1992 supplementary (1) SCC 496 and inAdministration of the NCT Delhi versus Prem Sing reported in 1995Suppl. (4) SCC 252. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that thedetention order is at pre-detention stage and it should not beinterfered with except under the following circumstances:i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act underwhich it is purported to have been passed;ii) that is sought to be executed against a wrong person;iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose;iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevantgrounds; orv) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.Relying upon the aforesaid judgements Mr.M.Dhandapanilearned counsel for the respondents submitted that the detenu mustsurrender first instead of filing of the writ petition at the pre-execution stage and thereafter it would be open to him to make allpermissible legal grounds to challenge the detention order by filingHCP as held in Union of India versus Parasmal Rampuria reported in1998 8 SCC 402, and In Union of India and others versus ArvindSherkill and another reported in 2000 7 SCC 601. In those cases ithas been held that writ petition challenging the detention order atpre-execution stage cannot be maintained. Similarly in Sayed Tahervs. Bawamiya vs. Joint Secretary to the Governent of India and othersreported in 2000 8 SCC 630 the Apex Court upholding the decisions ofHigh Court held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India would not be appropriate as the proposed detenuhas not surrendered and the detention order has not been served onhim. The learned counsel further relied upon another judgement of theApex Court in Union of India and others versus Muneesh Sunejareported in 2001 (3) SCC 92, wherein the Supreme Court categoricallyheld that in the matter of pre-detention cases interference of thiscourt is not called for except in the circumstances set fourth inAlka Subhash Gadia case. Similar view was also expressed in judgementdated 16.2.2004 passed in Union of India versus Manchanda and othersand Union of India versus Varinder Mohan Jain and another. Relying onthe above judgements Mr.M.Dhandapani. learned counsel for therespondents strenuously contended that the detention order cannot bequashed at the pre-detention stage itself. 11.Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer, learned counsel for the petitioneranswered the points that there was a heavy delay of 15 years, whensteps were taken to secure the petitioner and even now the petitionerhas not been arrested. The heavy delay is a fatal to the detentionand hence the detention order is liable to be quashed even at thepre-detention stage itself. He relied upon a recent judgement of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra andanother reported in AIR 2009 SC 628. In that case, the detentionorder dated 22.5.2008 was challenged in pre-detention stage. Forentertaining the said writ petition, preliminary objection was raisedby the respondents relying upon the decisions rendered in State ofMaharashtra versus Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande reported in AIR 2008 SC1705 following the decisions in Additional Secretary to theGovernment of India and others versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and theother decisions in Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India and othersreported in 2006 (4) SCC 796 and in Alpesh Navindchandra Shah vs.State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007 2 SCC 777. Afteranalising the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court observed asfollows:"4. We have carefully perused the aforesaiddecisions and we are of the opinion that the legal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ position regarding the power of this court or the HighCourt to set aside the preventive detention order at thepre-execution stage needs to be further explained " " 6. We have carefully perused the aboveobservations in Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia's case (supra)and we are of the opinion that the five groundsmentioned therein on which the court can set aside thedetention order at the pre execution stage are onlyillustrative not exhaustive".12.The learned Judges finally held in para 28 of the judgementas follows: " 28. Learned counsel for the respondent submittedthat a writ of habeaus Corpus lies only when there isillegal detention, and in the present case since thepetitioner has not yet been arrested, no writ of habeascorpus can be issued. We regret we cannot agree, andthat for two reasons. Firstly Article 226 and Article32 of the Constitution permit the the High Court and theSupreme Court to not only issue the wirts which weretraditionally issued by British Courts but theseArticles give much wider powers to this court and theHigh Court. This is because Article 32 and Article 22state that the Supreme Court and High Court can issuewrits in the nature of habeas corpus, Mandamus,Cetiorari etc. and they can also issue orders anddirections apart from issuing writs. The word 'in thenature of imply that the powers of this court or theHigh Court are not subject to the traditionalrestrictions on the powers of British Courts to issuewrits. Thus the power of this court and the High Courtare much wider than those of the British Courts videDwarka Nath vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, DWard, Kanpur and Anr., AIR 1966 SC 81 (vide para 4),Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee VandasjiswamiSuvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs.V.R.Rudani & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607 (vide paras 16 to18), etc. Secondly, what the petitioner really prays foris a writ in the natuare of certiorari to quash theimpugned detention order and/or a writ in the nature ofmandamus for restraining the respondents from arrestinghim. Hence even if the petitioner is not in detention awrit of certiorari and/or mandamus can issue."13.Holding maintainability of writ at the pre-detention stage,the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the detention order at the pre-detention stage on the ground that the relevant material was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed before the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel for thepetitioner also relied on the judgements of this court in Md.Ali JanSahib vs. State of Tamil Nadu, by Secretary to Government HomeDepartment (Special Cell) Fort St.George, Madras-9 and othersreported in 1992 LW (Crl.) 148 and an unreported judgement passed inS.Elango vs. State of Tamilnadu in W.P.No.10722 of 1990 and inHarigopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.5938 of 1990,wherein this court issued writ of mandamus to forbear the respondentsfrom arresting and detaining the detenu therein pursuant to thedetention order passed under COFEPOSA Act. Relying upon thosejudgements and in view of law settled by the Apex Court in DeepakBajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 628,learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ ismaintainable.14.As far as the maintainability of the writ petition in thepre-detention stage is concerned, it has been settled by the SupremeCourt in a recent judgement in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra &Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 628. In view of the decisions of bothSupreme Court as well as this High Court, maintainability of writpetition at pre-detention stage is upheld and the preliminaryobjections raised by the respondents are hereby rejected.15.The detention order was passed as early as on 7.10.1994,nearly 15 years ago, and no effective steps have been taken by therespondents in securing the petitioner pursuant to the detentionorder passed in 1994. The detention order is to prevent a personfrom abusing and perverting of law. There is no material placedbefore this court to substantiate that the detenu continues toindulge in the activities for which detention order has been passed.Hence on the ground of delay in securing the petitioner, the writ isfound to be maintainable by this court. 16.In T.A.Abdul Rahman versus State of Kerala reported in AIR1998 SC 225. the detention order was passed on 7.10.1987 and thedetenu therein was arrested on 18.1.1988. The detention order passedin the said matter was quashed holding that when there wasunsatisfactory and unexplained delay, namely three months, betweenthe date of detention order and the date of securing the detenu, itwould cast considerable doubt on the genuineness subjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority. He also relied on ajudgement passed in K.P.M. Basheer versus State of Karnataka andanother reported in 1992 2 SC 295 in which three judges benchof the Apex Court held that delay of more than five months forexecuting the order vitiated the live and proximate link between thegrounds of detention and the purpose of detention snapped on accountof the undue and unreasonable delay. The Honourable Supreme Court inManju Ramesh Nahar and others reported in 1999 (4) SCC 116, quashedthe detention order on the ground of delay in execution for more than https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one year. In the case SMF Sultan Abdul Khader vs. Joint Secretary toGovernment of India and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 343, the ApexCourt held that the detention order was quashed as it was notexecuted and there was the delay in detaining the petitioner, as noserious efforts were made by the police authorities to apprehend thepetitioner. In A.Mohammed Farook vs. Joint Secretary to theGovernment of India and others reported in 2000 SCC (Crl.) 411 thedetention order was quashed on the ground of 40 days delay inexecution of the detention order. Similarly this court in KanthabaiK.K.Dwivedi vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi reported in 1988 Law Weekly(Crl.) 47, quashed the detention order on the ground of delay of oneyear and 11 months for the arrest of the detenu as it was notproperly explained in the counter affidavit. This court in P.K.SBadrudeen versus The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministryof Finance, New Delhi and another reported in 1991 Law Weekly (Crl)373 quashed the detention order as there was a long delay inapprehending the detenu and there was a delay of seven months toarrest the detenu. In Mohamed yousuf versus The State of Tamil Naduand others reported in 1991 L.W.(Crl.) 80, the detention order wasquashed as there was a delay of 7 1 /2 months in executing thedetention order. In Abdul @ Nazer @M.Abdu @ M.Abdu Manhammat tilversus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1990 Law Weekly (Crl.) 188 thedetention order was quashed on the ground of unexplained delay inarresting the detenu. 17.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, it is well settled law that the delay in securing thedetenu vitiates the detention order. Here in this case, the delay isnot a few days or months but it is a delay of 15 years. The very factthat there was a delay of 15 years would speak that the respondentsare not interested in securing the petitioner. There is noexplanation in the counter affidavit as to why the petitioner couldnot be secured. Paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit states asfollows: "21 (i) .... The delay in execution of thedetention order was caused by the petitioner makinghimself scarce and absconding from known addresses. ..... (ii) There is no delay considering the factthat the detention order could not be executed due to theabsconding of the petitioner from his known address."18.Even as per para 3 of the Additional counter affidavitfiled by the second respondent on 17.9.2009, in columns, 31,33,35,60,61 and 62 it is stated that the petitioner was available at hisnative place address in 1994 itself. If the respondents gotinformation that the petitioner was available in the native place, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents could have exercised their power under theConservation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and could havearrested the petitioner as there were provisions contained for thearrest in the aforesaid Act. The respondents miserably failed toexercise their powers and that itself would show that there was alapse on the part of the respondents in securing the petitioner. Inthe reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it was mentioned in para5 that the petitioner was not at all absconding but was appearingbefore the remand court regularly. It is specifically mentioned inpara 5 as follows:" I submit that though the detention order was passedon 7.10.1994, it was not executed when I appeared beforethe learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EOI),Egmore, Chennai-600 008 on 28.10.1994, 30.10.1994."19.It is further stated that in the last week of December 1994a show cause notice was issued by the Special Director and on receiptof the said show cause notice, the petitioner engaged his counsel andfiled a detailed reply dated 12.1.1995 denying all the allegationsand requested the respondents to drop all further proceedings. Inview of the aforesaid contentions made by the petitioner in paragraph5 of the reply affidavit, it is beyond doubt that no step was takenby the respondent to secure the petitioner eventhough he was verymuch available in his native place and he appeared before the RemandCourt. The details regarding the petitioner's absence, the dates onwhich the petitioner did not appear before the Trial court were givenin in Serial No.41 of the dates and events filed by the respondents.The aforesaid hearing dates on 28.10.94 and 31.10.94 on which datesthe petitioner appeared before the trial court were not shown in thedates and events as non-appearance of the petitioner before the trialcourt. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that inspite of thepetitioner's appearance on 28.10.94 and 31.10.94 before the TrialCourt, the respondents did not take any steps to secure the detenu.Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was absconding from hisplace of residence as contended by the respondent. FERA 1973 repealedonly in 2000 and the respondents had power to arrest theaccused under the Act. When such is the position there is noexplanation as to why the respondents did not exercise their powerunder the Act and arrest the petitioner.20.It is seen from the dates and events filed by therespondents in Serial No.47 a reference is made to a letter dated19.11.2003 which was sent for revocation of the detention order and areport dated 16.3.2005 which was sent regarding the pending un-executed detention orders sent to the Head Office (recommending forrevocation) and about the various reports till 5.2.2007. Hence it isdeemed that the respondents themselves decided to recoke thedetention order. There was a lapse on the part of the respondents in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detaining the petitioner and hence based on the settled principles oflaw, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 21.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thedetention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Preventive of Smuggling Activities Act 1974.Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 was repealed in 2000 and it wasreplaced by Foreign Management Act 1999. The new Act does not havestringent provisions like arrest, grant of bail and sentence. Noprovision is made for arrest in 1999 Act and the offences have to betreated as civil wrong in view of change of legal scenario.Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thedetention order has to be declared invalid and un-executable. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner further submitted that though ForeignExchange Regulation Act 1973 got repealed in 2000 by ForeignManagement Act 1999, there is a saving clause under Section 49 ofthe Act itself that any action in the old Act would continue underrepealed Act. C.C.No.95 of 1995 filed under Section 56 of the Actis pending before the competent Court and there is no prohibitionwith regard to continuation of the said proceedings, whereas thedetention order has been passed under Section 3(1) of theConservation of Foreign Exchange and Preventive of SmugglingActivities Act 1974. In lieu of change of legal Scenario thedetention does not survive. For the offence as stated above under theold Act, the Criminal prosecution can continue. 22.Preventive detention order is being passed only to preventthe accused from indulging or continuing to indulge in a prohibitedactivities as a preventive measure. The detention is without anytrial or without any conviction but it is only as a preventivemeasure. The liberty of persons is precious under the fundamentalrights which comes under Article 21 of the Constitution of India andit should not be transgressed. Moreover the new Act only speaks aboutthe offences which are civil in nature and compoundable. Thepetitioner might have committed the offences under FERA 1973 forwhich prosecution has already been launched by the respondents inC.C.No.95 of 1995, where the respondents are at liberty to prove thecase against the petitioner and get conviction against him.23.Learned counsel for the petitioner filed Additional Typedset of papers, wherein it is stated that the other person, M.MohammedAbdul Kader who was detained in connection with the same search andseizure at M/s.Hameeda Jewelers were detained pursuant to thedetention order passed on 20.10.1994 and was executed on 23.4.2009,in respect of M.Mohammed Abdul Kader @ Muzzamil and whose detentionorder was revoked by the respondents as per reason given by theAdvisory Board that there was no sufficient reason for detention ofthe above said person and he was released in exercise of powerconferred under Section 8 ( f ) of the COFEPOSA Act. Relying upon the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said revocation order, learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat when similarly placed persons were released and the detentionorder was already revoked, the petitioner's detention is also liableto be quashed. He relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Courtpassed in Alpesh Navinchandra Shah reported in 2007 (1) SCC Crl. 653,wherein the detenu and his brother were detained under the provisionsof COFEPOSA Act. The detenu's brother was released on the ground thatthere was no sufficient cause for detention of the detenu underSection 3(1) of the Act and the Government accordingly revoked thedetention order after considering the report of the Advisory Board.Considering the fact that similarly placed person viz. the detenu'sbrother was released the detention order was quashed in respect ofthe other person also. The Supreme Court relied upon a previousjudgement in Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI reported in 2003 reportedin 2003 (5) SCC 257, wherein six out of five detention orders wererevoked by the competent authority and in view of that the otherdetention order passed against the detenu therein was also quashed.Even on this score also, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefsought for in this writ petition. Similarly the Honourable AllahabadCourt also quashed the detention order as four detentions werealready rerevoked by the State Government and the said similarjudgement was passed in Wazir Yadav vs. The State of Utrapradesh andothers reported in 1993 Crl. L.J. 1220.24.As stated earlier the preventive detention is only as apreventive measure to restrain the persons from indulging andcontinuing their prejudicial activities,. The facts of the case wouldshow that except the passing of the detention order in 1994 and thereis no allegation against the petitioner that he is continuing toindulge in prejudicial activities. Fifteen years have passed and inthese circumstances, this court has to come to the conclusion thatthe petitioner is not indulging in any activities under the FERA Act.In view of that also the impugned order is liable to be quashed andaccordingly quashed. 25.The writ petition is allowed. However there will be noorder as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.2.The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.+1 cc to Mr.M.Dhandapani, Advocate, SR.No.60096+1 cc to Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer, Advocate, SR.No.60634 ORDERIN W.P.No.9288 of 2009NG {CO}TP/9.12.2009.