Delhi High Court
Amrik Singh vs Union Of India on 22 May, 2015
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2560/2013
AMRIK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms.
Hina Shaheen, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 22.05.2015
1. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 05.05.2011. The
Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (in short the Tribunal) dismissed
the appeal of the writ petitioner against the order dated 15.07.2010, passed
under Section 68F (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (in short the NDPS Act), on a singular ground, which is, that the
appeal was time barred.
2. To be noted, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section
68O(1) of the NDPS Act, which was received in the Tribunal, on
29.11.2010. It is not in dispute that during this period, the petitioner was in
judicial custody.
2.1 It is also the case of the petitioner both before this court as well as
before the Tribunal that his mother, who is aged, was seriously ill.
2.2 As a matter of fact, the writ petitioner had filed the appeal with the
W.P.(C) 2560/2013 page 1 of 3
Tribunal with an application for condonation of delay. In terms of Section
69O(1) of the NDPS Act, an appeal has to be preferred with Tribunal, within
45 days from the date on which the order is served on the aggrieved party.
2.3 The Tribunal is empowered to entertain an appeal, which is, filed after
the said period of 45 days, though not later than 60 days from the date of
passing of the impugned order, provided, the aggrieved person is able to
demonstrate that delay was on account of sufficient cause.
3. Notice in this petition was issued on 22.04.2013. Since then,
respondent has filed its counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the
respondent has taken the stand that the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal is demonstrative of the fact that the order dated 15.07.2010, was
served on the petitioner, on 30.08.2010.
3.1 There is a further averment to the effect that the said order (i.e. order
dated 15.07.2010) was despatched by the Station House Officer, P.S. Sadar,
Thanesar, for service, on the petitioner.
3.2 It is, in this context, that the respondent has averred that a report dated
22.07.2010 was generated by the office of the said SHO wherein, it is
recorded that the petitioner refused to accept service on 22.07.2010 when, he
was called upon to do so by the Assistant Superintendent, Jail.
3.3 It is further averred that yet another attempt, to effect service of the
order dated 15.07.2010, was made, though the petitioner refused to accept
service. The assertion is that refusal of service was made in the presence of
an independent witness. This occurrence is said to have taken place on
23.09.2010.
W.P.(C) 2560/2013 page 2 of 3
4. Pertinently, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent is not
accompanied by the report of the SHO dated 22.07.2010.
4.1 Apart from the assertion made in the counter affidavit, there is
nothing to show that an attempt was made to effect service on the writ
petitioner, on 23.09.2010 in the presence of independent witness.
4.2 Be that as it may, the impugned order somehow seeks to take the
position that the petitioner was served on 30.08.2010. There is an apparent
conflict in the position taken by the respondent, and that, which is indicated
in the impugned order.
4.3 In the impugned order, there is no such reference to attempted
services by the SHO, to which I have made a reference hereinabove. The
Tribunal, it appears, has not satisfied itself as regards service being effected
of order dated 15.07.2010, on the petitioner.
5. In these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order. It is
ordered accordingly. The Tribunal will, therefore, hear the matter on merits
and render a decision in the matter.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 22, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 2560/2013 page 3 of 3
