Delhi High Court
Shri Jatinder Bali vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 March, 2018
$~42
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 23.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2864/2018 & CM Nos.11579-581/2018
SHRI JATINDER BALI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sibu Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC
with Ms. Anumita Chandra,
Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL. No.11579/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2864/2018 & CM. APPL.Nos.11580-581/2018
2. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents says that he
does not wish to file a counter affidavit in the matter in view of the
order that I propose to pass.
3. The record shows that pursuant to the order dated 31.8.1999
passed against, one, Shri Kapil Dutt Bali under Section 7(1) & (3)
read with Section 19(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short
SAFEMA), the impugned order dated 1.2.2018 came to be passed
by Sub-Tehsil Office, Mahlilpur.
3.1 The petitioner, it appears at the relevant time was the partner
of Shri S. Bali, who, since then has passed away.
3.2 The petitioner claims that he has 51% share in the
reconstituted partnership firm which goes by the name M/s
Mahilpur Oil Store. The balance 49% share is, presently, controlled
by, one, Shri Kapil Dutt Bali, son of late Shri S. Bali.
4. The petitioner apart from anything else wishes to avail of the
benefit of the provisions of Section 9 of SAFEMA which gives an
option to pay fine in lieu of forfeiture of property provided
conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that if an opportunity
is given, a representation will be made to the competent authority
within the time specified by the court.
6. Mr. Narula says that if a representation is made in terms of
Section 9 of SAFEMA, the same will be considered and speaking
order will be passed.
7. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order upon a
representation being made by the petitioner, albeit, within a period
of five weeks from today. A copy of the speaking order will be
furnished to the petitioner. Pending disposal of the representation,
no coercive action will be taken qua the petitioner pursuant to the
order dated 1.2.2018.
8. In case the order passed by the competent authority is
against the interest of the petitioner, the same will not be given
effect for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to take
recourse to an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
9. Pending applications shall stand closed.
10. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 23, 2018
mk
