Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1497 - HC - Indian LawsForfeiture of property - direct relationship of the detenu with the property or not - if the property sought to be forfeited was the property of a person with whom a direct relationship of the detenu or the associate of the detenu could not be established, then it would be incumbent on the authority under the Act of 1976 to establish that the relevant property was acquired with illegal funds? - HELD THAT:- In exercise of the authority of judicial review, the scope for interference is rather limited. When a fact-finding authority has addressed the objections of the writ petitioner and an appellate authority has endorsed the relevant order, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappraise the matter. All that the High Court seeks to ascertain is whether the procedure adopted by the authorities under the relevant statute was rational, reasonable and proper. The High Court would also attempt to find out whether due notice was given to the writ petitioner, whether he was afforded a fair hearing and a reasoned order was passed. Once the High Court is satisfied that the order complained against was passed by an authority possessing jurisdiction, that the procedure adopted was reasonable and the process of adjudication culminated in a cogent decision, the High Court would not look any further. The other ground that can be invoked by the High Court to interfere with an order of such kind would be if the order shocks the conscience of the court, in the sense that no reasonable person in the position of the relevant executive or quasi-judicial authority could have passed the order on the set of facts before it. The facts in this case were that the writ petitioner had been detained under the Act of 1974, though the Advisory Board opined that there was not enough material against him to detain him. Even if the writ petitioner’s status as a detenu under the Act of 1974 was wiped clean upon the opinion of the Advisory Board to not proceed against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner’s association with the said Pothiawala was good ground under Section 2(2)(d) of the Act of 1976 to forfeit any property of the writ petitioner. As to whether the writ petitioner was an associate of the said Pothiawala or the writ petitioner could be said to have had no nexus with such person, was essentially a question of fact. When the writ court discovered that a fact-finding authority had addressed the matter and had rendered a finding which was endorsed in appeal, unless glaring anomalies were demonstrated, the writ court would not have reopened the matter or revisited the issue - Appeal dismissed.
|