Judgment.- Certain articles, and currency notes of the value of Rs.40,000 were seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Special Customs, Preventive Officer, Kozhikode and party which searched the pan shop premises of the petitioner on 5th March, 1968. The articles were all directed to be confiscated by Exhibit P-4 order. In so far as the order directed confiscation of the articles, I am informed that the petitioner has preferred an appeal, and the same is pending. The order also records that as far as the currency notes of the value of Rs. 40,000 is concerned, the Collector was ordering its release. Having directed this, at the end of the order and after signature there is a note at the foot of the order which reads- “Note: On a requisition from the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, in his letter No. ENQ. 1049 of 1968, dated 28th October, 1968, under section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the Indian currency involved in the case is passed on to him for action only under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.” 2. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is directed only against this note made by the Collector, by which after, having directed release of currency notes of the value of Rs.40,000, he transferred the currency notes to the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, on a requisition from him in a letter stated to have been issued under section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Section 19 (2) of the Foreign Regulation Act reads: “19(2): Where for the purpose of this Act, the Central Government or the Reserve Bank considers it necessary or expedient to obtain and examine any information, book or other document in the possession of any person or which in the opinion of the Central Government or the Reserve Bank it is possible for such person to obtain and furnish, the Central Government or, as the case may be, the Reserve Bank may, by order in writing, require any such person (whose name shall be specified in the order) to furnish, or to obtain and furnish, to the Central Government or the Reserve Bank or any person specified in the order with such information, book or other document.” It is difficult to see how the action complained of can be justified under the terms of the above section. For the one thing, the difficulty arises as to how the Deputy Director of Enforcement, acting under the terms of the section can call upon the Collector of Customs to pass on the currency notes to him. I was informed that there was an order passed by the Government of India, directing the Senior Superintendent of Central Excise, Special Customs Preventive, Calicut, to furnish or to obtain and furnish to the Central Government, certain information and documents by making the same available to the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Cochin on receipt of the order. Even assuming that the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Cochin, may, for this purpose be regarded as the agent of the Government of India, it is difficult to regard the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, as having any power or authority to require by his letter, the passing of the currency notes as recorded in the note to Exhibit P-4. Counsel for the respondent stated that the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, is a part of the Finance Ministry of the Government of India. Even so, there seems to be another difficulty in sustaining the order. Neither section 19(2) nor any other provisions of the Act, seem to indicate that currency notes can be regarded as documents for the purpose of section 19(2). But there is a provision in section 19(2), sub-section (7), which states that in that section and in section 19-A to 19-G or any other section, which Counsel for the respondent claimed, would be attracted to the case. As it is, I am unable to sustain the action under action 19(2). Being so, I allow this original petition, and quash Exhibit P-4 order, in so far as it directs, by the note appended to it, that currency notes to the extent of Rs.40,000 released by the earlier part of the order, will be passed on to the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras in pursuance of his letter, dated 28th October, 1968. 3. This original petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 4. Nothing stated in this judgment will preclude the respondents from proceediong to take any further action in accordance with law. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed order for passing the notes quashed.