Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) - Petitioner
Versus
District Collector, Bunder, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23167 of 2022 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 3, (1), 7, 8, (3), (4), (8) - Remove seals on properties - Unlawful associations - Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove seals on schedule properties mentioned in annexure appended to petition on consideration of representation of petitioner – Merely because all offices in Mangalore are sealed and not anywhere else would not mean that evidence would not be required for petitioner to prove its case in terms of Section 8 of Act - Para 11.
Finding of the Court:
Notification by which Union Government directs State Government to act in a particular manner cannot be considered in absence of any evidence - More so, in light of contention that State Government has acted beyond powers conferred on it would be neither here nor there as State Government has, on certain inputs to it, imposed seals or clamped upon offices of petitioner along with others - Merely because all offices in Mangalore are sealed and not anywhere else would not mean that evidence would not be required for petitioner to prove its case in terms of Section 8 of Act - Notifications issued to seal premises of petitioner by State Government are undoubtedly under exercise of power under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section (8) of Act - Therefore, petitioner has an alternative remedy which is statutory and necessarily to be availed of, in peculiar facts of this case, as recording of evidence for acts of State is imperative - It is trite law that mere existence of alternative remedy of appeal, writ petition cannot be said to be not maintainable or entertainable – Court decline to entertain petition.
Result: Petition rejected.
ORDER :
The petitioner/Social Democratic Party of India (‘SDPI’ for short) is before this court calling in question notification dated 28-09-2022 insofar as it pertains to entries at Sl.Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and has consequently sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove seals on the schedule properties mentioned in the annexure appended to the petition on consideration of the representation of the petitioner.
2. Facts in brief that are germane are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a political party registered under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and has its representation all over India, more particularly, in the Dakshina Kannada District. It is the claim of the petitioner in the petition that the political party is in the forefront of empowerment of the deprived sections of the society by divisive forces through its political movement. What drives the petitioner to this court in the present petition lies in a narrow compass. On 27-09-2022 the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘the Act’ for short) declared Popular Front of India (‘PFI’ for short) and its associates or affiliates or Fronts including Rehab India Foundation, Campus Front of India, All India Imams Council, National Confederation of Human Rights Organization, National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala as unlawful associations. On 28.09.2022 Government of India directed that all the powers which are exercisable by it under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act shall be exercised by the State Governments and Union territories. It appears that Government of India later conveyed approval that the State Government and Union Territory Administrations may, by order in writing direct that any power which has been directed to be exercised by it, shall, in certain circumstances be exercised by any person subordinate to the State Government and the Union Territory.
3. Based on the aforesaid notification, several raids took place in the City of Mangalore. While so doing, certain campuses and places which were being allegedly used by several organizations were sealed and a few such offices of the petitioner/SDPI were also sealed in Mangalore. Against the said act of sealing of premises by the State Government, the petitioner submits a representation on 29-09-2022, being surprised as to why the offices run by the petitioner/SDPI is targeted. No reply comes about on the representation given by the petitioner. It is at that point in time, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition on 15-11-2022. This Court issues notice to the respondents and directs impleadment of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India as party respondent to these proceedings and all the respondents have filed their respective documents or statement of objections as the case would be. At the time of hearing of the petitioner, certain documents were produced before the Court by the State Government which led the petitioner to amend the petition raising a challenge to the very notification of the Central Government delegating its powers to the State Government to act in terms of the Act.
4. Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.4.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohammed Tahir submits that a perusal at the Notification which imposes a ban on the activities of the Popular Front of India would clearly indicates that it is restrictable only to certain entities which are depicted in the said Notification itself. SDPI was not the one of those entiti
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Action of the Central Government would be covered under the exception of Article 19 (4) of the Constitution of India - Immediate action appears to have been taken in the interest of so....
The court affirmed the validity of property attachment under the U.A.P.A., confirming jurisdiction and procedural adherence despite contestation of unlawful association status.
Sealing of property must be done in accordance with statutory provisions and due process of law, as guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The court upheld the validity of Section 19-B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, determining it complies with constitutional requirements and does not confer arbitrary power on the state.
Writ petitions can be maintained against show cause notices if they demonstrate pre-determined conclusions by the authority, constituting a legal mala fide exercise of power.
Deprivation of property without due process violates constitutional rights. Sealing without prior notice and opportunity to be heard is a violation of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
