Kerala High Court
Rukia Bi vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2022
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
W.P.(C).No.19018/19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2019
PETITIONERS
1 RUKIA BI
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O LATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, RUKIA MANZIL,
KANNANCHERY, PANNIANKARA, P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN-673 003.
2 SABIRA P.S.
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O. LATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, CHOLAYIL HOSUE, BEHIND
BSNL, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678
541.
3 SHAREEFA P.S.
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. ATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, THEVAR MANNIL HOSUE,
CHENNAMANGALLUR P.O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673 602.
4 P.S.AREEFA MAJEED
AGED 51 YEARS
D/O. LATE P.S.AHMED KOYA, THEVAR MANNIL HOSUE,
CHENNAMANGALLUR P.O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673602.
5 FAMIDA P.S.
AGED 1 YEARS
D/O. LATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, MUNDOLY HOUSE, BEYPORE
P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 015.
W.P.(C).No.19018/19
2
6 MOHAMMED SALIM
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, RUKIA MANZIL,
KANNANCHERY, PANNIANKARA, P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, IN-673 003.
7 SADIQ P.S.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.S. AHMED KOYA, RUKIA MANZIL,
KANNANCHERY, PANNIANKARA, P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, IN-673 003.
8 HAFIS AHAMMED P.S.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.S.AHMED KOYA, RUKIA MANZIL,
KANNANCHERY, PANNIANKARA, P.O. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN-673 003.
9 ADDL. SAHIR M.,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE KOYATTY HAJI, MUNDOLI HOUSE, P.O.
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673015.
10 ADDL. AFRA M.,
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O. LATE FAMIDA P.S., MUNDOLI HOUSE, P.O.
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673015.
11 ADDL. SHOUQA M.,
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. LATE FAMIDA P.S.,MUNDOLI HOUSE, P.O.
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673015.
12 ADDL. ZOONA M., (MINOR)
AGED 14 YEARS
D/O. LATE FAMIDA P.S., MUNDOLI HOUSE, P.O.
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673015.
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SAHIR M. (THE APPELLANT
NO.1.
(ADDITIONAL P9 TO P12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 13/01/2022 IN IS 1/2022)
W.P.(C).No.19018/19
3
BY ADVS.
P.A.NOOR MUHAMED
S.GIFFARA
BILAL NIAMATHULLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
SMUGGLERS AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE
OF PROPERTY ACT 1976 AND NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCE ACT, 1985), UTSAV, NO.64/1, G.N.CHETTY ROAD,
T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017, TAMIL NADU.
3 R.SHIVAKUMAR
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/THE COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SMUGGLERS
AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
ACT 1976 AND NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE
ACT, 1985), UTSAV, NO.64/1, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR,
CHENNAI-60017, TAMILNADU.
4 METAL SCRAP TRADE CORPORATION LIMITED (MSTC LTD)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISPAT BHAVAN, 3RD
FLOOR, NO.5, KODAMBAKKAM, HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600034,
TAMIL NADU.
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001.
7 MR.ISHAQUE
SNEHA RESIDENTS, H.NO.18, COTTON MILLA ROAD, NEAR
URAVANKULAM TEMPLE, AREEKAD, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673 027.
W.P.(C).No.19018/19
4
8 ADDL R8, THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN 673 020.
9 ADDL R9, THE REGISTRAR/SUBREGISTRAR,
SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673 028.
ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07-08-2019 IN IA 2/2019
10 ADDL.R10. SAMJU T.M. ALIAS SAMJU,
THAZHE MANEDATH RAZIYA MANZIL, ERANHIKKAL , KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, 673303-PIN . ADDL R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 20-10-2021 IN IA 7/2020 IN WP(C)19015/2019.
11 ADDL. P.SHAMSUDHEEN,
S/O. LATE P. MOOSA, POOMAKOTH HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL P.O.,
CALICUT-673303.
(ADDITIONAL R11 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
05/11/2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPC 19018/2019)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
SRI.NIRMAL. S
P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
MANU TOM
SMT.VEENA HARI
SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA B
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
V.C.SARATH
VIPIN NARAYAN
POOJA PANKAJ
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
ABEL TOM BENNY
KIRAN ANTONY
SHAJI T.M.
RENIL IQUBAL K.
BALAMURALI K.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
03.03.2022, THE COURT ON 28.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.19018/19
5
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.19018 of 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i)Declare that Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976 to the extent of its adverse inconsistency with the rest of the provisions' under Section 2(2) of the said Act is discriminatory, ultra vires, null, void and unconstitutional and strike down the Constitution (40% Amendment)Act 1976 in so far as it places SAFEMA, to the extent it discriminates a person mentioned in Section 2(2)(b) from a person mentioned in Section 2(2)(a) of SAFEMA in the matter of application of SAFEMA, in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India. OR in the alternative, Declare that Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976 should be read down in a constitutionally valid manner avoiding any kind of discrimination;
ii) call for the entire records relating to Exhibit-P2, declare that Exhibit-
P2 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal and set aside Exhibit-P2 and the entire proceedings of all the authorities including that of the respondent No.2 in pursuance of and built up on the foundation of Exhibit-P2;
iii) Declare that the entire proceedings initiated against the properties of late Mr P.S.Ahamed Koya and his wife Rukia Bi on the basis of Exhibits-P1 and P2 are illegal and unconstitutional and therefore, null and void;
iv) call for the records leading to the purported auction mentioned about under Exhibit-P30 In relation to the properties involved in the W.P.(C).No.19018/19 6 present case i.e, those covered under serial No.1 and 2 in the Annexure to Exhibit-P2 and set aside the same; iv(a) call for the records leading to Exhibits-P37B and P37C and issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the originals of Exhibits-P37B and P37C and all actions of the respondents in pursuance of Exhibits-P37B and P37C; "
2. Heard Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Vinitha B, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Veena Hari, the learned counsel for the 7 th respondent, Sri.Suvin R Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel and Sri.Ajeesh, the learned counsel for the 10th respondent.
3. Voluminous documents have been produced and extensive pleadings are raised in the writ petition. The petitioner has also placed reliance on several precedents in support of his contentions. But shrone of all unnecessary details, the questions raised are essentially with regard to the validity of orders under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA for short) which have been W.P.(C).No.19018/19 7 unsuccessfully challenged up to the Supreme Court by the original detenue and the 1st petitioner, who is his wife.
4. The contentions presently urged before me are two fold. One that there is no order of detention issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA for short) in the case of the orginal detenue who has since passed away and that therefore the invocation of the SAFEMA against the detenue and the 1 st petitioner was bad in law, being devoid of jurisdiction. It is contended that the existence of an order of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the exercise of power under the SAFEMA. It is further contented that all the earlier proceedings were vitiated by fraud, since the fact that orders of detention had not been issued had been suppressed from this Court and all other authorities. Secondly, the petitioner would urge that Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA is bad in law in as much as there is no condition provided therein with regard to the value of the property which is specifically W.P.(C).No.19018/19 8 provided in Clause (1) and (2) of Section 2(2)(a). It is contended that this aspect of the matter has not been decided in any writ petition and that the issue is liable to be considered on merits.
5. I notice that Exhibit P1 is a declaration under Section 12-A of the COFEPOSA. The original detenue had no case that he was not detained under the COFEPOSA and had not suffered such detention. Section 12-A specified that the procedure provided in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the further procedure under the COFEPOSA would not be applicable in the case of a detention during emergency declared under Article 359(1). The detenue was admittedly detained during the emergency and had been released immediately on the lifting of the emergency on 23.7.1977. A notice under the SAFEMA had been issued to him and the 1 st petitioner herein, who is his wife. An order of confiscation under the SAFEMA had been issued in the year 1978. The original detenue and the 1st petitioner, his wife, challenged the order of confiscation before this Court which led to Exhibit P5 judgment. He had no W.P.(C).No.19018/19 9 whisper of a case that there was no order of detention served on him. The matter was taken in as intra-court appeal and was confirmed. Thereafter, a circular was issued by the Central Government and the original detenue and the 1 st petitioner again approached this Court seeking the benefit of the said circular and the withdrawal of the SAFEMA proceedings initiated against him. The said writ petition was dismissed by Exhibit P7 judgment, which was confirmed in appeal and later by the Apex Court. The review petitions filed also stood dismissed. Thereafter, the property was put to sale and the auction purchasers have also been arrayed as parties in the writ petition. It is now contended that since there was no order of detention passed and served on the detenue, the initiation of the proceedings under the SAFEMA were completely devoid of jurisdiction and were bad in law.
6. The learned ASGI as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, who are the auction purchasers of the property contend that the question stands settled by a nine Bench decision of the Apex Court in Attorney General for W.P.(C).No.19018/19 10 India v. Amrathlal Prajivandas [1994 KHC 484]. It is further contended that in the light of Exhibit P1 declaration and the provisions of Section 12-A of the COFEPOSA, read with the findings of the Apex Court in Attorney General for India v. Amrathlal Prajivandas, the petitioners have absolutely no right to raise such contentions before this Court at this late hour. It is contended that this writ petition is an abuse of process of court and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length. It is not in dispute that the original detenue, who is the husband of the 1 st petitioner was detained under the COFEPOSA. Exhibit P1 is the declaration issued under Section 12-A of the COFEPOSA. Section 12-A of the COFEPOSA reads as follows:-
"12A. Special provisions for dealing with emergency. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules of natural Justice, the provisions of this section shall have effect during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on the 3 rd day of W.P.(C).No.19018/19 11 December 1971, or the Proclamation of Emergency issued under that clause on the 25th day of June, 1975, or a period of (twenty-four months) from the 25th day of June, 1975, whichever period is the shortest.
(2) When making an order of detention under this Act against any person after the commencement of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Central Government or the State Government or, as the case may be, the officer making the order of detention shall consider whether the detention of such person under this Act is necessary for dealing effectively with the emergency in respect of which the proclamations referred to in sub-section (1) have been issued (hereafter in this section referred to as the emergency) and if, on such consideration, the Central Government or the State Government or, as the case may be, the officer is satisfied that it is necessary to detain such person for effectively dealing with the emergency, that Government or officer may make a declaration to that effect and communicate a copy of the declaration to the person concerned:
Provided that where such declaration is made by an officer, it shall be reviewed by the appropriate Government within fifteen days from the date of making of the declaration and such declaration shall cease to have effect unless it is confirmed by that Government, after such review, within the said period of fifteen days. (3) The question whether the detention of any person in respect of whom a declaration has been made under sub-section (2) continues to be necessary for effectively dealing with the emergency shall be reconsidered by the appropriate Government within four months from the date of such declaration and thereafter at intervals not exceeding W.P.(C).No.19018/19 12 four months, and if, on such reconsideration, it appears to the appropriate Government that the detention of the person is no longer necessary for effectively dealing with the emergency, the Government may revoke the declaration.
(4) In making any consideration, review or reconsideration under sub-section (2) or (3), the appropriate Government or officer may, if such Government or officer considers it to be against the public interest to do otherwise, act on the basis of the information and materials in its or his possession without disclosing the facts or giving an opportunity of making a representation to the person concerned.
(5) It shall not be necessary to disclose to any person detained under a detention order to which the provisions of sub-section (2) apply, the grounds on which the order has been made during the period the declaration made in respect of such person under that subsection in is force, and, accordingly, such period shall not be taken into account for the purposes of sub-section (3) of section 3.
(6) In the case of every person detained under a detention order to which the provisions of sub-section (2) apply, being a person in respect of whom a declaration has been made thereunder, the period during which such declaration is in force shall not be taken into account for the purpose of computing-
(i) the periods specified in clauses (b) and (c) of section 8;
(ii) the periods of "one year" and "five weeks" specified in sub-
section (1), the period of "one year" specified in sub-section (2)(i), and the period of "six months" specified in subsection (3) of section
9."
W.P.(C).No.19018/1913
8. The nine Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Attorney General's case (supra) specifically considered a challenge to the COFEPOSA and the SAFEMA on various grounds. The said judgment specifically referred to orders of detention made on or after the date of proclamation of emergency to which Section 12-A was applicable. It was specifically noticed by the Bench that the detenues were neither supplied with the grounds of detention nor were they given an opportunity to make representation against their detention nor were their cases referred to the Advisory Board. After considering the entire legal contentions raised and specifically the various provisions including Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, it was held that the Parliament was perfectly competent to enact both the COFEPOSA and the SAFEMA. It was further held that an order of detention made under Section 3 of COFEPOSA which was governed by Section 12-A thereof is yet an order of detention for the purpose of and within the meaning of Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA and can serve as the foundation for applying the SAFEMA.
W.P.(C).No.19018/1914
9. The declaration under Section 12-A in respect of the original detenue is produced as Exhibit P1 in this writ petition. In pursuance thereto, proceedings had been issued against the properties of the original detenue and the 1 st petitioner herein. The said proceedings were challenged by them before this Court, unsuccessfully. Further, they had again approached this Court seeking the benefit of the circular issued by the Central Government on 23.6.1994. Those proceedings also ended in dismissal and was confirmed up to the Apex Court, even in review. The 1st petitioner has, therefore, suffered adverse orders in her application. The orders issued under the SAFEMA therefore stood affirmed. The other petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of the original detenue, therefore have absolutely no claim or title to the property, which stood confiscated under the provisions of the SAFEMA, which had been upheld upto the Apex Court.
10.After having challenged the order issued directly, I fail to see how the 1st petitioner or anyone claiming through the original detenue can raise the legal contentions before this Court on W.P.(C).No.19018/19 15 the varied grounds which they seek to raise in this writ petition.
In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to go into the legal questions raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction and fraud, since the issue stands conclusively decided inter partes and no further adjudication is possible in law. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj W.P.(C).No.19018/19 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19018/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 16.8.1975 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME (SS) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.1976 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.4.1978 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.10.1979 PASSED BY THE APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.1995 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.277/1983 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF A SIMILAR NOTICE DATED 15.3.1988 PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HIMSELF UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE SAFEMA IN ANOTHER CASE OF ANOTHER PERSON, WHICH IS INVOLVED IN PP ABDULLA ND ANOTHER VS COMPTENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (2007) 2 SCC 510.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2006 IN OP NO.20133/1998 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2006 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1869/2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2007 IN SLP (C) NO.1938/2007 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
W.P.(C).No.19018/1917 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.7.2013 IN SLP (C) NO.1938/2007 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2014 IN REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.319/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.2.2009 MADE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.2.2009 RECEIVED BY P.S.AHAMED KOYA FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REPLY TO EXHIBIT P12.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.3.2009 OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.2009 FROM THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFIFCER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN AND THE INFORMATION DATED 20.3.2009.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.9.2010 MADE BY MR.AHAMED KOYA UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.10.2010 FROM THE STATE UBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME (SS A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P16.
W.P.(C).No.19018/1918 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.12.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , HOME (SS A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.12.2010 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 9.2.2011 FROM THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY & JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (SS A ) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE TWO REVIEW REPORTS DATED 21.11.2014 ISSUED FROM THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.1.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.8.2015 MADE BY MR. AHAMED KOYA.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.10.20158 OF THE INSPECTING OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2016 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPIES OF RELEVANT PARTS OF THE SAID WRIT PETITION DATED 26.10.2016 AND OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.10.2016 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
W.P.(C).No.19018/1919 EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.11.2016 IN WMP NO.33358/2016 IN WPC NO.38950/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2017 IN TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.274/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION DETAILS DATED NIL THUS GON ONLINE FROM THE WEBSITE OF WWW.THETENDERS.COM.
EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 22.6.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE MSTC LTD. UNDER THE RIGHT INFORMATION ACT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.6.2019 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO.1. EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.6.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 28.6.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONERS COUNCEL TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPEIS THE TWO ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES, BOTH DATED 29.6.2019 ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MEENCHANTHA AT KOZHIKODE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED NIL AS OBTAINED FROM ITS WEBSITE.
W.P.(C).No.19018/1920 EXHIBIT P37(A) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 27.10.2016 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PERITIONER'S COUNSEL ATTACHING EXT.P27 EXHIBIT P37(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.8.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 EXHIBIT P37(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.8.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2016 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2016 WHICH HAD BEEN SENT EARLIER FROM THE OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO OUR COUNSEL EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6.8.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 27.2.2019 EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.7.2019 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF R2 EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE ON PROPERTY DATED 13.11.2020 FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE AT MEENCHANTHA EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 14.8.2020 DOWNDLOADED FROM THE WEB SITE OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPIES OF THE TWO ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES BOTH DATED 12.11.2020 AND ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE AT MEENCHANTHA.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS W.P.(C).No.19018/19 21 EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.1982 IN O.P NO.4520 OF 1979.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.05.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.6.209 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FNO.OCA/MDS/RTI/38/2019-20 DATED 31.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.08.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.06.2019 FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.07.2019 ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT BY THE CPIO.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P46 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 4.8.2021 FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO 2 BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION W.P.(C).No.19018/19 22 Exhibit P47 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2021 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION , NEW DELHI Exhibit P48 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.8.2021 SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P49 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 20/9/2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO 2 Exhibit P50 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2020 IN BA 5219/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P51 TRUE COPY OF THE TREES FOUND CUT DOWN IN THE PROPERTY BY RESPONDENT NO.7 EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.9.2020 Exhibit R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 13152/2020N DT 11.9.2020 Exhibit R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2020 Exhibit R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 4.11.2020 Exhibit R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9. 2021 TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE