Full Text
W.P.(C) 11143/2016 & CM No. 43565/2016
KAUSARIRAM Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajat Aneja and Ms Chandrika Gupta, Advocates.
Through: Mr Sarat Chandra, Advocate for UOI.
Mr Anuj Aggarwai, ASC with Ms Deboshree Muklierjee, Advocate for
R-2&3.
MTH
& 31789/2017 MOJID. IQBAL Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajat Aneja and Ms Chandrika Gupta, Advocate.
Through: Mr Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for UOI.
NAIMA Kl-IATOON & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Ms Chandrika Gupta and Ms Vandna Aneja, AdA'ocates.
Through: Mr Manish Moiian, CGSC with Ms Manisha Saroha, Advocate.
COIiAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU 2018:DHC:8622
I
C
03.01.2018 a
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed these petitions, inter alia, impugning an order dated 21.04.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned order') issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property of India, Respondent no.2 (hereafter 'the Custodian') recalling the earlier order dated 05.07.2010 passed under Sections 5, 5A and 24 ofthe Enemy PropertyAct, 1968.
2. By the impugned order, the Custodian has held that the earlier order dated 05.07.2010, which was passed by the Custodian in compliance with the order dated 01.02.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 137/2010 captioned Tasleem Mirza v. Union of India and Ors., was obtained by playing a fraud and concealing material facts. The Custodian had concluded that L,ate Hazi Rehman Elahi, who was accepted as an Indian National in the the order dated 05.07.2010 was, in fact, a Pakistani National. The Custodian has further held that various orders in suits as well as arbitration awards have been obtained by fi-aud.
3. Mr Aneja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned orderhas been passed without following the principles of natural justice and without affording the concerned parties an opportunity of being heard. He also contended that the impugned order amounts to review of the order dated 05.07.2010 passed five years earlier and the Custodian had no power to review its orders.
4. After some arguments, it is apparent that the impugned orderhas been passed without affording the concerned parties a full opportunity of being t « heard and without giving them prior intimation as to the grounds on which the Custodian now believes the properties in question to be enemy property.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. In tlie event the Custodian seeks to review or recall the order dated 05.07.2010, he shall issue a prior notice to all the concerned parties and provide them with the full opportunity of representing their case and being heard before any order adverse or to their interest is passed. It is also clarified that it will be open for the petitioners to urge all contentions including that the Custodian does not have any power to reviev/ his earlier orders. Needless to mention that the Custodian is required to consider ali contentions and pass a reasoned order.
6. The petitions and pending applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 03, 2018 RK