2023 (3) TMI 1391 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transaction - As argued petitioner submits that, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice - respondent submits that, initially, notice was sent to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the Initiating Authority and petitioner has given four addresses, from which, all are incorrect address. Due to which, the notices sent to the petitioner were returned with an acknowledgment no such person . Hence, the present impugned order was passed in the absence of the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that, expressing any opinion on the merits of the case would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner as well as the respondents. This Court has to see whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the petitioner had not appeared before the adjudicating authority. In his absence, the present impugned order is passed, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent u/s 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice
The petitioner sent a sum of Rs.99,75,000 in cash through his cousin, who was intercepted by the police. The petitioner was not provided an opportunity before the impugned order was passed under the PBPT Act. The petitioner challenged this lack of opportunity, citing violation of natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Opportunity to be heard
The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was passed without the petitioner being given a chance to present his case. The Senior Panel Counsel for the first respondent contended that notices were sent to the petitioner, who provided incorrect addresses resulting in non-delivery. The impugned order was defended as not violating the petitioner's rights.

Issue 3: Judicial review and setting aside the order
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court found that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner had not appeared before the adjudicating authority. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority within a week and a decision was to be made within two weeks thereafter.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.