Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Nahida Parveen vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 11 March, 2020
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
S. No. 100
Suppl. list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 743/2020
CM No. 1592/2020
Nahida Parveen
....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Anees-ul-Islam, Adv.
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
ORDER
11.03.2020 ORAL:
01. Petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the house constructed on 08 marals of the land bearing Khasra No. 673 Khata No. 42/80 situated at Rose Lane Colony, Bag-i-Mehtab, Srinagar. While in possession , the respondent No. 3- Investigating Officer (SSP Anti Corruption Bureau, Srinagar) vide order No. SSP/ACB/FIR-25/2018/5191-93 dated 29.10.2019 has seized the property in exercise of the power conferred under Section 8-B of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006. The seizure/attachment order is challenged along with order of designated authority bearing Order No. GAD (Vig) 47/2019 dated 25.1.2019 in terms whereof seizure/attachment order is confirmed with further direction to the investigating officer to take all measures necessary to ensure the safety and protection of the seized property. These orders are challenged besides other grounds on the ground that there is total non adherence to the proviso to Section 8-B of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 (hereinafter to be called as PV Act). Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order deprives the petitioner Page 1|3 of the used house and the property which is owned by her and her right to life guaranteed under Constitution of India has been violated.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner while strengthening his arguments for the relief claimed referred to and relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Bench in case OWP No. 749/2006 titled Sr. Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organization Vs. Ghulam Rasool Magray reported in 2007 (3) JKJ [HC] with particular reference to the para 9, 11 and 22. Perusal of the order reveals that opportunity of being heard before passing of the seizure/attachment order by the investigating officer and its confirmation by the designated authority is mandated by the application of the proviso to the Section 8-B of the PV Act therefore learned counsel has submitted that the court while making reference of the question framed therein for the larger Bench in the meanwhile relegated back the proceedings to the stage of Sub Section (2) of Section 8-B and the designated authority also asked to recommence proceedings thereunder by giving the respondent and the recorded owner opportunity of being heard and maintain a record of his proceedings. With further direction that subject to the orders of designated authority and proceedings following the I.O's order of attachment relating to the house under reference shall be kept on "Superd-dar"
with the owner thereof on behalf of IO. But the house shall remain vacant and not be used for residential, commercial or any other purpose. Electricity and water supply thereto shall be dis-connected and the house conspicuously marked as "attached. In order to ascertain as to what is the decision of the larger Bench on the reference made in case OWP No. 749/2006 titled Sr. Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organization Vs. Ghulam Rasool Magray, vide order passed on 04-07-2007 by learned Single Bench, it has become necessary to seek the information from the Registry. Registry has submitted the record, perusal whereof reveals that the Division Bench in terms of order passed on 28.07.2008 on hearing learned counsel for the parties has opined that the Page 2|3 question raised by learned Single Bench did not arise in the case for consideration. Therefore, the Division Bench have disposed of the reference by requesting learned Single Bench to dispose of the writ petition on its own merits. The writ petition is pending before learned Single Bench and was last listed on 11.02.2020. The writ petition has been directed to be listed on
12.05.2020.
03. Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG incidentally available in the Court submits that the action taken by the investigating officer and the designated authority is in tune with the application of the proviso to Section 8-B of the PV Act and therefore the action taken is not at all bad.
04. Notice in main as well as in CM
05. Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG accepts notice of all the respondents
06. Reply be filed within two weeks.
07. List on 30th March 2020 alongwith OWP No. 749/2006.
08. Mr. Dar shall keep the records available on the next date of hearing so as to ascertain whether an opportunity of being heard is provided to petitioner before the order impugned is passed.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge SRINAGAR 11.03.2020 "Aasif"
AASIF GUL Page 3|3 2020.03.12 05:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document