R 1-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 25.11.2011
% W.P.(C) 260/1995
KAMLAWATI (DECD.) TH. KAMAL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.P. Dhir and Mr. Vikas
Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate
% W.P.(C) 302/1996
KAMAL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.P. Dhir and Mr. Vikas
Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate
% W.P.(C) 303/1996
RAMAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.P. Dhir and Mr. Vikas
Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)
I have already quashed the notice issued to the detenu under section 6(1) of SAFEMA and the consequent orders of forfeiture passed by the competent authority and by the appellate tribunal in CWP No.2276/1996. The "reasons to believe" as recorded in that case have been found to be deficient.
The same "reasons to believe" have been recorded by the competent authority in these cases as well, while issuing the impugned notices which form the basis of the forfeiture orders. Consequently, the forfeiture orders passed in these cases by the competent authority and the orders of the appellate tribunal upholding the same also cannot be sustained and are, accordingly quashed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J NOVEMBER 25, 2011 'SR'