JUDGMENT/ORDER

SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, of which Petitioner No.2 is a shareholder and authorized representative of Petitioner No.1. The petitioners claim that Petitioner No.1 has developed much of larger property and is in process of developing the remaining larger property comprising various buildings constructed/to be constructed on the larger property as described in details in Paragraph 2 of the petition.

3. The Petitioners state that their effort to complete the development of remaining buildings on the larger property has come to a stand still on account of the impugned notice and impugned communications received by the petitioners.

4. The petitioners submit that they were issued a notice dtd. 17/12/2021 by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property stating that there was an enemy interest involved in the larger property developed/ being developed by the petitioners, and therefore, they were called upon to inform the Assistant Custodian if there were any objections to the proceedings initiated under S