2021 (11) TMI 1063 - HC - Benami Property

Prohibition Benami Property Transactions - change of the Adjudicating Authority - Grievance raised by the petitioners is that vide the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has transferred more than 80 officers in the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax/Directors of Income Tax with immediate effect, including officers who were serving as Members, Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi, for the Prohibition Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 without taking into consideration the fact that those officers had reserved judgment in a number of cases and therefore while appropriate directions ought to have been passed to deal with this aspect - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC accepts notice. She prays for, and is granted, two weeks time to obtain instructions and file a reply, explaining the stand of the respondent as also how this issue can be resolved. In its reply, the respondent will also give a comprehensive list of the matters in which judgment has been reserved by the then incumbent officers holding the post of Member, Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Response thereto, if any, be filed before the next date. In case, before the next date, the matters are once again listed for arguments before the Adjudicating Authority, it will be open for the petitioners to make a request to the said Authority for adjourning the matter to await the outcome of the present petition, which request, if made, will be considered favourably by the Adjudicating Authority. List on 22.12.2021.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to office order transferring officers without considering reserved judgments.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to petitions challenging an office order transferring over 80 officers, including those serving as Members, Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioners raised concerns that officers were transferred abruptly after reserving judgments, leading to delays and rearguments in cases. The senior counsel for the petitioner highlighted previous instances of similar transfers causing disruptions in the judicial process.

The court issued notice to the respondents, granting them two weeks to provide instructions and file a reply addressing the concerns raised. The respondent was directed to present a comprehensive list of cases where judgments had been reserved by the officers affected by the transfers. The petitioners were allowed to file a response if needed before the next hearing date.

Furthermore, the court allowed the petitioners to request adjournments before the Adjudicating Authority if their cases were listed for arguments before a resolution was reached on the present petition. The next hearing was scheduled for 22.12.2021 to monitor the progress and resolution of the issues raised in the petitions.