9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 14-2-2001 respectively, passed by the Tribunal for Forfeited Property under section 12 of the SAFEMA by which Orders the Tribunal came to a finding that the Orders dated 20-3-1980 and 11-10-1979 (which are the subject-matter of CW.1297 of 2001; CW. 1302 of 2001 and 1538 of 2001) of the competent authority under section 7 of the Act were duly served on the appellant by affixture and in that view of the matter of the Tribunal declined to condone the delay of about two decades in preferring the appeals before it and accordingly dismissed the appeals. 2. The Tribunal while dealing with the plea of the petitioners that the impugned orders of the competent authority were not served on them, found that that procedure as prescribed by Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. Pursuant to the said direction, the order was affixed in the presence of the witness on 9-5-1980. The Learned Counsel firstly contended that the Competent Authority made no efforts to serve the order on any of the adult members of the appellant s family or on the Advocate of the appellant, who is also an agent of the appellant and hence, Clause ( a ) of section 22 was not complied with." The Tribunal further found that it was not obligatory to send the notice or order to the person and also to his agent as clause 22( a ) uses the phrase or . The Tribunal further found that the appellant s plea that the witness present at the time of affixture should have been a literate person was without merit and found that there is no requiremen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the parentage of the person, affixing the thumb impression though raised before the Tribunal was not dealt with by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise this plea for the first time in a writ Court as the Court is bound to go by the records of the case as recorded by the Tribunal, particularly when it is presided over by a retired Judge of High Court. Furthermore a perusal of the impugned Orders also shows that the petitioners have chosen to stay away from the proceedings pending before the competent authority under section 8 of the SAFEMA in spite of service. There is no dispute that the petitioners refused to accept the service of the notice for personal hearing, issued to them by the competent authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an illiterate person and was well aware of the legal consequences of refusal of service. In any case the petitioner s conduct before the competent authority discloses the mindset which seems to have persisted thereafter also. 6. In that view of the matter, I am fully satisfied that the impugned Orders, passed by the Tribunal are perfectly in consonance with the law and no ground of any kind has been made out by the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon prayer ( c ) of the writ petition to contend that according to him the impugned orders passed under SAFEMA are without jurisdiction, unreasonable, unjust, improper and this prayer ought to be separately considered in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
