2022 (8) TMI 426 - HC - Benami Property

Benami transactions - matter was heard by one authority and the judgment was pronounced by another authority - jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai - scope of notification dated 17.09.2021 extending the time period from 30.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 for pronouncing judgments in cases where hearings had been completed and orders were reserved cannot be applied to the present cases - provisional Attachment Orders were passed by the Initiating Officer under the Prohibition for Benami Property Transactions Act - HELD THAT - The notification dated 17.09.2021, would apply to such of those officers who had reserved orders, but had not pronounced it within the time as stipulated by the notification. The said notification cannot be extended to an officer who has ceased to occupy the post. Further, the notification dated 17.09.2021 only extended the period from 30.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 to deliver judgments in cases where the Adjudicating Authority was yet to deliver its judgments. Mr. Hari Govind Singh had not pronounced any judgment prior to 08.10.2021 and on that day, Mr. Hari Govind Singh, who was only holding additional charge ceased to be Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi. A writ is maintainable when there is a right. In the absence of any right, a writ cannot be passed. The Appellant has not been able to demonstrate violation of any right or breach of any notification which states that an Authority should pronounce the judgment in a matter heard by it even after the person, who heard the matter, has ceased to occupy the chair. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to common judgment dismissing Writ Petitions seeking relief against Ministry of Finance notification; Interpretation of Benami Act provisions; Extension of time for pronouncing judgments by Adjudicating Authority; Validity of appointment of Member, Adjudicating Authority; Applicability of notifications extending judgment deadlines; Right to seek writ in absence of demonstrated violation.

Analysis:
The Appellants challenged a judgment dismissing Writ Petitions against a Ministry of Finance notification. The Writs sought to quash the notification ending the ability of the existing Member Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi to deliver judgments, appointing a new officer instead. The facts revealed provisional Attachment Orders under the Benami Act in 2019. Section 7 of the Benami Act was amended, designating a Competent Authority as Adjudicating Authority. Hearings were held, and orders reserved by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi. Notifications extended judgment deadlines, and Mr. Hari Govind Singh was given additional charge as Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi. However, a new appointment ended his additional charge. The Appellants argued Mr. Singh should pronounce the judgment, citing legal precedents.

The Court analyzed the facts and legal precedents cited by the Appellants. It was noted that Mr. Singh ceased to function as the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi upon the new appointment. The Court differentiated the present case from past judgments where judgments were pronounced by different authorities. The notifications extending judgment deadlines were deemed inapplicable to an officer who had ceased to hold the post. The Court emphasized the specific wording of the relevant notification dated 17.09.2021. As Mr. Singh had not pronounced any judgment before his cessation as Adjudicating Authority, the Appellants failed to demonstrate a violation of rights or notification breaches.

The Court concluded that a writ is maintainable only when a right is violated. In this case, no breach of rights or notification terms was established by the Appellants. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment dismissing the Writ Petitions. The appeals were consequently dismissed with the above observations, and pending applications were disposed of.