Telangana High Court
Tatikonda Mahender Reddy vs The Union Of India on 2 May, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION NO.12916 OF 2025
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in invoking the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 1988) and thereby passing the impugned order, dated 22.02.2025 under Section 24 (4)(b)(i) of the Act, 1988, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently, to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Ms.K.Mamata, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that during the process of election to the State Legislative Assembly of the State of Telangana for the year 2023, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners vide FIR No.1323 of 2023 on 2 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171-B read with 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 123 (1) (A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 alleging that on 22.11.2023, when the Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station during routine vehicle inspection on the National Highway 65, intercepted the vehicle i.e., Hyundai i20 Car bearing No.AP-23-AG-3719, in which petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 were travelling, and seized cash amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- to hand over the same to the contesting MLA candidate i.e., Sri Komatireddy Rajagopala Reddy from Munugodu Assembly Constituency for Election purpose. Petitioner Nos.3 and 5 were travelling in Innova Car bearing No.TS-13-G T/R 7153. Aggrieved by registration of said FIR, the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.4033 of 2024 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in the said F.I.R. The said Criminal Petition is pending for adjudication. The learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, District, vide order, dated 02.05.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2024 in C.C.No.548 of 2024 was pleased to direct the Investigation Officer to deposit FD of 3 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 Rs.2,00,00,000/- before the Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the warrant, dated 26.06.2024 under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') issued by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), panchanama was conducted and the alleged amount was deposited into the account of the Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad.
4. According to the respondents, the subsequent investigation was conducted by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Hyderabad. During the course of investigation summons under Section 131 of the Act, 1961 were issued to the petitioners to furnish sources of cash of Rs.2.00 crores seized by the Hayathnagar Police from their possession. None of them appeared nor furnished any information about sources of said cash. On receipt of information as it is a potential benami transaction, approval under Section 23 of the Act, 1988 was sought from the approving authority for conducting further enquiry. Accordingly summons under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 were issued to the petitioners on 28.10.2024 and asked them to appear before the respondent authorities on 04.11.2024. On the said date, none appeared for the petitioners 4 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 and no documents were filed to establish the ownership of seized cash. Again summons were issued on 07.11.2024 asking the petitioners to appear in person on 8.11.2024. On that date also, none appeared for the petitioners so also even as per the bank statements and income tax returns, the sources of income were insufficient to justify the possession of Rs.2.00 crores by the petitioners. After due enquiry and sufficient opportunity being provided to the petitioners, a show cause notice, dated 15.11.2024 was issued under Section 24 (1) of the Act, 1988 for complying the same on or before 09.12.2024 and also asking the petitioners to explain as to why the seized cash found in their possession, and subsequently deposited with the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad, should not be treated as 'benami property' under Section 2 (10) of the Act, 1988. Despite issuance of summons and show cause notice, there was no response or supporting documents were submitted by any of the petitioners within the stipulated period. The details of notices issued/served on the petitioners are extracted as under:
Sl. Type of Notice DIN/ Date of Mode of Status Remarks No. /Communication Reference Service Service Number
1. Summons under Section 19 1.ITBA/COM/F/ 28.10.2024 Registered Not 1.Sri Sampathi of PBPT Act 17/204- Post/Email complied Shiva Kumar 25/1069982022 (1) 2. Sri Tatikonda 5 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025
2.ITBA/COM/F/ Mahender Reddy 17/2024-
25/1069982272 3. Sri Nimma (1) Vinay Kumar
3.ITBA/COM/F/ Reddy 17/2024-
25/1069982539 4. Sri Nimma
(1) Vinay Kumar
4.ITBA/COM/F/ Reddy
17/2024-
25/1069982762 5. Sri Surakanti
(1) Mahender Reddy
5.ITBA/COM/F/
17/2024- failed to appear
25/1069983189 on 04.11.2024
(1)
2. Summons under Section 19 1.ITBA/COM/F/ 07.11.2024 Registered Not 1.Sri Sampathi
of PBPT Act 17/2024- Post/Email complied Shiva Kumar
25/1070161063
(1) 2. Sri Tatikonda
2.ITBA/COM/F/ Mahender Reddy
17/2024-
25/1070161212 3. Sri Nimma
(1) Vinay Kumar
3.ITBA/COM/F/ Reddy
17/2024-
25/1069982539 4. Sri Nimma
(1) Vinay Kumar
4.ITBA/COM/F/ Reddy
17/2024-
25/1069982762 5. Sri Surakanti
(1) Mahender Reddy
5.ITBA/COM/F/
17/2024- failed to appear
25/1069998318 on 18.11.2024
9 (1)
3. Show cause notice under ITBA/COM/F/1 15.11.2024 Registered Not 1.Sri Sampathi
Section 24 (1) of PBPT Act 7/2024- Post/Email complied Shiva Kumar
25/1070389277
(1) 2. Sri Tatikonda
Mahender Reddy
3. Sri Nimma
Vinay Kumar
Reddy
4. Sri Nimma
Vinay Kumar
Reddy
5. Sri Surakanti
Mahender Reddy
failed to appear
on 09.12.2024
4. Show cause notice under ITBA/COM/F/1 27.12.2024 Registered Not 1.Sri Sampathi
Section 24 (1) PBPT Act 7/2024- Post/Email complied Shiva Kumar
25/1071632150
(1) 2. Sri Tatikonda
Mahender Reddy
3. Sri Nimma
Vinay Kumar
Reddy
6
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_12916_2025
4. Sri Nimma
Vinay Kumar
Reddy
5. Sri Surakanti
Mahender Reddy
failed to appear
on 06.01.2025
As there was no response from the petitioners within the stipulated period mentioned in the show cause notice, respondent No.2 has no option except to proceed with passing of an ex parte order relying on the evidence available on record. The beneficiary of seized cash remains unknown and in the absence of credible information, respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that it is a 'benami property' as defined under Section 2 (9) (D) of the Act, 1988.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, dated 22.02.2025 under Section 24 (4) (b)(i) of the Act, 1988 declaring the petitioners to be 'Benamidars' as per Section 2 (10) of the Act, 1988. With regard to the provisions and purport of the Act, 1988, he further submits that the existence of benami property has not been established by the respondent authorities and they have not been linked to the alleged seized cash to 'benami property', which could ultimately give the transaction a benami 7 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 color. He further submitted that without establishing the existence of 'benami property' or the factum of benami transaction in relation to a Benami property, respondent No.1 has illegally classified the petitioners as 'Benamidars.'
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality as respondent No.2 failed to disclose the material particulars of the transactions on the basis of which the petitioners were declared as "Benamidars." He further contended that the said unclaimed cash of Rs.2.00 crores cannot itself be considered as 'benami property', in the absence of fictitious transaction, so as to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1988. He further contended that the seized amount would not come within the definition of 'benami property' and learned counsel for the petitioners tried to point out the definition of 'benami property' under Section 2 (8) of the Act, 1988, which means any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction, which includes the proceeds from such property. He also pointed out to Section 2 (10) 'Benamidar' as per whichmeans 'a person or a fictitious person, as the case may be, in whose name the benami property is transferred or held and includes a person who lends his 8 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 name' and Section 2 (26) defines the 'property' means 'broadly as assets of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal and includes any right or interest in the property, as well as legal documents or instruments evidencing title or interest in the property.' Learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to impress upon this Court that the said cash which is said to have been seized does not come within the meaning of 'benami property.' In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following judgments in T.Raja v. K.Visakh 1 , Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L.Rs and another v. MST Bibi Hazra and others 2 , Mangathai Ammal (Died) through legal representatives and others v. Rajeswari and others 3 '; Communication and Consultants and another v. Surendra Kerdile 4 , Niharika Jain and others v. Union of India and others 5 ; Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and another 6 and PHR Invest Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others 7 1 (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 256 (PBPTA-AT) 2 (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 3 3 (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 496 4 (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 411 5 2019 SCC Online Raj 1640 6 (1961) 41 ITR 191 7 (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 579 9 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025
7. On the other hand, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 an 4, appearing for the Department submitted that there is no error committed by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order and that before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were given ample opportunity to appear before the authorities concerned for adjudication as to whether the seized cash comes under 'benami property' and the petitioners can be termed as 'benamidars'. As the petitioners did not choose to appear before the concerned authority though sufficient opportunity was given, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not claiming right or ownership over the seized cash. He also contended that the petitioners do not even know the owner of the said cash or sources of the said cash. Admittedly, the word 'beneficial owner' defined under Section 2 (12) of the Act 1988 was mentioned as 'unknown'. Though as per record, notices under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 were issued to the petitioners, none of them appeared before the concerned authority i.e., the 10 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Initiating Officer under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Since petitioners did not choose to appear on any of the dates mentioned in the notices, respondent No.2 has no other option and he was forced to pass the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the transaction is 'benami' and said cash seized is a 'benami property.' Further, it is also not the case of the petitioners that they are not being provided any opportunity to put up their case or the respondents have committed any breach of non compliance of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioners disown the said property seized and also did not choose to place before the authorities as to the details of ownership of the said property.
9. A perusal of the record would clearly show that the petitioners were given ample opportunity before passing the impugned order, as such under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit over the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 as an appellate authority and so also to adjudicate upon the provisional attachment order passed by respondent No.2, as respondent No.3, being the Adjudicating Authority, which is competent to sit over the matter and 11 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 adjudicate upon the contentions of the petitioners. On perusal of the entire material placed before this Court, this Bench is of the considered opinion that though petitioners were granted an opportunity, they do not even choose to respond to the notices or appear before the respondents to put up their case. Even to substantiate their contentions that they do not come within the meaning of 'benamidars.' In the absence of the same, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and as such nothing is there to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. It is for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies before Adjudicating Authority, which is appropriate authority to decide over the facts whether the petitioners are 'benamidars' and the property under possession is 'benami property' or not. Further the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are relating to attachment of salary, bank account; purchase of property; availment of loan from the respondent-Bank by mortgaging the properties and borrower defaulted in payment of loan, the said bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI, Act, 2002 and auction sale notice was served. Therefore, the judgments relied 12 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_12916_2025 upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Bench is of the opinion that no substantial ground is made out by the petitioners to seek indulgence of this Court to interference with the impugned order, dated 22.02.2025, passed by respondent No.2.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY __________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date:02.05.2025 YVL