IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 8882 of 1999(G)
1. RUKIA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :06/12/2006
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------
O.P.Nos.8882/1999 & 9512/2000
----------------------------------------------
Dated 6th December, 2006.
J U D G M E N T
O.P.9512/2000
The writ petition is filed mainly with the following
prayers :-
(i) To call for the entire records leading to the passing of the direction
to surrender/deliver possession of the house property, measuring 5.26
cents in Sy.No.79/1 and 87/2 in Mattancherry village, together with a
building with a plinth area of about 900 sq.feet (approximate)
together with further additions, if any at the address VI/1313, ‘Zalina
Manzil’, Pallakkattuparambu, near syndicate bank, Mattancherry,
Cochin-2 in file No.OCA/MDS/2635 dated 17.3.99 of the 4th respondent,
the competent authority, Madras and to issue a writ of certiorari or
any other writ, order or direction quashing the same.
(ii) To call for the entire records leading to the passing of the order
of detention of the petitioner, ie., order No.18369/SS.A1/82 Home
dated 20.5.82 of the 2nd respondent, the Spl.Secretary to Government,
and to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction and
quash the same.”
As far as the second prayer is concerned, it is submitted that the
petitioner has already served the term. As far as the first relief is
concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th
respondent at paragraph 4 that “The fact that the impugned
property is in the joint name of the petitioner and his wife has
come to the knowledge of the 4th respondent only on receiving the
letter dated 26.3.2006 from my counsel and as the matter is
OP NO. 8882/99 & 9512/2000 2
pending before this Hon’ble Court no fresh notice has been issued
to the petitioner and this respondent is ready to issue notice to
the petitioner and to hear him and to pass appropriate orders.”
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent on 8.2.2007, on
which date, the 4th respondent will afford an opportunity for
hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law in the matter, within another two months.
O.P.8882/1999
Petitioner is the wife of the petitioner in
O.P.No.9512/2000. She is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated
against the property under the SAFEMA Act. In the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the competent authority, it is stated as
follows :-
“Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the 2nd respondent, who after due process of law, vide his order dated
5.2.1999 in F.P.A.No.14/MDS/94, has confirmed forfeiture order made
by the third respondent in respect of the house property and the two
bank deposits held by the petitioner. For the movable asset, i.e.,
Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.KEF 2406 the second
respondent has considered and allowed the source of a bank loan to
the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs claimed by the petitioner and directed the 3rd
respondent to consider giving an option to pay the fine in lieu of
forfeiture for the unexplained investment by invoking Section 9 of the
Act. The 2nd respondent further directed the 3rd respondent if he
desires, to evaluate afresh the claims of the petitioner in respect of
the remaining sources for that property. The petitioner filed the
present Original Petition before this Hon’ble Court and obtained an
interim stay vide order in C.M.P.No.14782/99 in O.P.8882/99 and
stayed further proceedings.”
OP NO. 8882/99 & 9512/2000 3
The writ petition filed by the husband has been disposed of
directing him to appear before the competent authority, the 4th
respondent in the said writ petition and the third respondent
herein, on 8.2.2007. The petitioner herein also will appear before
the competent authority on 8.2.2007 and the said authority will
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an
opportunity for hearing to the petitioner, within another two
months. It is made clear that in that view of the matter, I have
not considered the writ petition on merits and it will be open to
the petitioner to take all available contentions before the
competent authority. The interim order passed by this Court in
C.M.P.No.14782/99 will continue till such time.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, J
———————————————-
O.P.Nos.8882/99 & 9512 of 2000
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 6th December, 2006.