2022 (5) TMI 594 - HC - Benami Property

Prohibition Benami Property Transactions - change of the Adjudicating Authority - grievance of the petitioners essentially is that on more than one occasion the Adjudicating Authority constituted under the Prohibition for Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 1988 Act has been transferred out after final hearing of matters had been concluded and orders reserved - HELD THAT - As the change of the Adjudicating Authority firstly came about by virtue of the statutory amendments which were introduced. Further although the Adjudicating Authority of Mumbai who held additional charge of Delhi had reserved orders on 16 September 2021, no final verdict was rendered prior to appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. From the aforesaid it is manifest that no wrongdoing can be fastened upon the respondents nor can they be held accountable for a failure on the part of the erstwhile Adjudicating Authority to have rendered final judgment prior to the appointment and posting of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. The Court further finds its unable to either countenance or discern an indefeasible right which may be recognised in law as inhering in the petitioners to seek continuance of the authority who had heard the matter on 16 September 2021 despite the appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. Once that officer came to be appointed as the competent authority for SAFEMA, he statutorily and by operation of law also became the Adjudicating Authority for the purposes of the 1988 Act. Admittedly, the authority who had heard the matter had not rendered judgment prior to 1 October 2021. The consequences which would flow from the appointment which was made on 1 October 2021 could not have possibly been interdicted by any administrative order directing the continuance of the officer who had reserved orders on 16 September 2021. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on certain practice directions which this Court follows while effecting transfers of Judicial Officers is noticed only to be rejected. This since the appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor was validly made and in any case does not form subject matter of challenge. The petitioners as noted above cannot not claim any right which may be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek the continued posting of Mr. Hari Govind Singh notwithstanding the appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. Regard must also be had to the undisputed fact that Mr. Hari Govind Singh was essentially appointed as the Adjudicating Authority to deal with matters placed before the Bench dealing with matters relating to the 1988 Act at Mumbai. He had only been granted additional charge of the Bench at New Delhi. Viewed in that light there was a clear and continuing imperative operating upon the respondents to make a regular appointment of an Adjudicating Authority insofar as the Bench at Delhi is concerned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification extinguishing existing Member Adjudicating Authority's ability to deliver judgments, failure to pass judgments within specified time frame, laying down guidelines for transfer orders.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Notification: The petitioners sought relief against a notification extinguishing the existing Member Adjudicating Authority's ability to deliver judgments without providing a time frame for passing orders. The Court noted the reliefs claimed, including setting aside the notification and directing the concerned Authority to pass judgments within a specified time frame. The petitioners contended that the transfer of the Adjudicating Authority after final hearings and reserved orders was unjust.

2. Appointment of New Adjudicating Authority: The appointment of a new Adjudicating Authority, Mr. Sanjog Kapoor, was challenged by the petitioners. Despite the previous Authority reserving orders on 16 September 2021, no final verdict was rendered before Mr. Kapoor's appointment. The Court found that the change in Authority was primarily due to statutory amendments and that Mr. Kapoor, upon appointment, became the Adjudicating Authority by law.

3. Legal Standing and Right to Continued Posting: The Court rejected the petitioners' claim for the continued posting of the previous Adjudicating Authority, Mr. Hari Govind Singh, emphasizing that Mr. Kapoor's appointment was valid and in accordance with the law. The petitioners' reliance on practice directions for judicial transfers was dismissed, as the appointment of Mr. Kapoor was not subject to challenge. The Court found no enforceable right under Article 226 of the Constitution for the petitioners to seek the continued posting of Mr. Singh.

4. Misconceived Challenge: Ultimately, the Court deemed the challenge raised in the writ petitions as thoroughly misconceived and dismissed them with costs quantified at Rs.50,000. The judgment highlighted that the appointment of Mr. Kapoor as the new Adjudicating Authority was lawful, and there was no wrongdoing on the part of the respondents in effecting the change in Authority.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Delhi High Court addresses the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the notification, appointment of a new Adjudicating Authority, legal standing, and the dismissal of the challenge as misconceived.