Kamlawati (Decd.) Th. Kamal Kumar vs Union Of India & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 5740 Del

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'