THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.964 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Mr. Parikshith Kutur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Srinivas Sivaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Mr. Vishwajeet Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. This intra court appeal is filed against an order
dated 21.06.2023, passed by a learned Single Judge, by which the
writ petition viz., W.P.No.11154 of 2023, preferred by the
appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not
maintainable at the instance of the appellant.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate (respondent No.3) issued a communication dated 02.09.2021 to respondent No.4, by which respondent No.4 was requested not to refund any ::2::
amount or alternative land to the appellant without prior approval of the Enforcement Directorate. The appellant, thereupon filed the aforesaid writ petition questioning the validity of the aforesaid communication dated 02.09.2021.
5. Learned Single Judge, however, by an order dated 21.06.2023 inter alia held that the appellant is not a party to the communication and therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the same. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petition, at the instance of the appellant, is not maintainable.
6. It is pertinent to note that nothing bars filing of the writ petition by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in that sense of the word, the writ petition, at the instance of the appellant, is not maintainable cannot be a correct position of law.
7. It is also pertinent to note that by communication dated 02.09.2021, respondent No.4 had been advised not to refund any amount or alternative land to the appellant without prior ::3::
approval of the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, the appellant is personally aggrieved by the aforesaid communication and it cannot be held that appellant has no locus standi to challenge the communication dated 02.09.2021.
8. Learned Single Judge, further adverting to the merits of the case, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is not a party to the communication. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11154 of 2023, is set aside. Matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on merits.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 11.10.2023 LUR