2018 (8) TMI 1854 - HC - Indian Laws

Attachment of property - non-compliance of principles of natural justice as well as non-compliance of the provisions contained under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - service of notice - application of mind relating to the order of approval - HELD THAT - This Court finds that it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to examine the veracity and legality of the notice of attachment issued way back as on 22/12/2017 as of now as the matter is already pending before the adjudicating authority. However, all the objections, which the petitioner has raised before this Court, can be taken up by him before the adjudicating authority and it would be for the adjudicating authority to decide and examine all the objections and pass a reasoned order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice of attachment and order passed by the approving authority under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the notice of attachment and the order passed by the approving authority dated 22/12/2017. The grounds raised included non-compliance with principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, specifically Section 24 regarding service of notice and application of mind to the order of approval. The respondent-caveator for Revenue informed the court that the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority, where the Benamidar had already submitted objections, and the petitioner, as a beneficiary, could also raise objections. The adjudicating authority was scheduled to consider the matter shortly.

The court refrained from examining the legality of the notice of attachment issued in 2017, as the matter was already before the adjudicating authority. The court directed the petitioner to present all objections before the adjudicating authority, which would then decide and examine the objections and issue a reasoned order. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide the petitioner with sufficient time to submit objections in writing and to thoroughly examine the issue, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties involved. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.