Bastushilpi Constructions Pvt ... vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3081 Tel

          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