Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Aquib Rouf & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 November, 2018
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
16.11.2018
.
Item No 03 Court No.15 A.vijit Mitra W.P. No. 22543 (W) of 2018 In re: Aquib Rouf & Ors.
- Versus -
Union of India & Anr.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Souvik Mitter, Mr. Antarikhya Basu For the Petitioners Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Ms. Stuti Kar For the Respondent 2 The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief :
"A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent authorities, especially respondent no.2 to refrain from executing the auction in respect of the properties enumerated in auction notice dated 25.09.2018 belonging to the petitioners herein and/or their relatives".
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that by a notice dated 25th September, 2018 the respondents have put to auction eight plots of land belonging to the petitioners and their relatives without any prior notice. The petitioners are the relatives of one Md. Azad Pervez, who was convicted of charges of commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the said Act of 1985). Against the order of conviction an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending. Aggrieved by the said auction notice, Md. Azad Pervez preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 22062 (W) of 2018 in which no interim order was passed since it was submitted on behalf of the 2 respondent no.2 therein that none of the properties put to auction belongs to the writ petitioner therein. However, the writ petition was admitted with direction to exchange affidavits.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of section 68-I and 68Z of the said Act of 1985 and Rules 19 and 20 of the Illegally Acquired Property (Receipt, Management and Disposal) Rules, 1989, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that without any prior notice and without any opportunity of hearing, the properties belonging to the petitioners have been put to auction by the respondents and such action is arbitrary and illegal.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 68A(2)(d) of the said Act of 1985, Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that the provisions of Chapter VA of the said Act of 1985 would also be applicable to the petitioners.
He further submits that the petitioners have suppressed material facts inasmuch as in terms of the provision of Section 68H notices were issued to the petitioners and thereafter order of forfeiture of property was passed under Section 68-I(3) and aggrieved by such order, the petitioner no.3 preferred an appeal, as provided under Section 68-O of the said Act of 1985.
Prima facie, it appears from Section 68A(2)(d) and Section 68B(h)(i) that the provisions of Chapter VA of the said Act of 1985 would apply to the petitioners since they are the relatives of Md. Azad Pervez. It also does not appear that the petitioners were totally unaware of the forfeiture proceedings.
Accordingly, the prayer for interim order is refused. 3 The respondents would be at liberty to file their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks; reply, if any, be filed within period of two weeks thereafter.
The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of the period as fixed above towards exchange of affidavits.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)