Back
High Court Of Delhi
ANIL KUMAR
RAVI SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT - Respondents
W. P. (C) 23810 Of 2005
Decided On : 11/13/2006
WAIVER - Jurisdiction - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 21, 25, 28, 29, 68(H)(1), 68k, 68I(1)(3), 68K - The court dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ directing the Competent Authority to waive the demand of Rs. 10,36,788/- on account of extension fees and for setting aside the demand raised by the Estate Officer. The court held that the entire cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Haryana and it is that court which will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner in the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ directing the Competent Authority to waive the demand of Rs. 10,36,788/- and for setting aside the demand raised by the Estate Officer. The petitioner contended that the demand was illegal and without authority of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entire cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Haryana and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi to entertain the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entire cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Haryana and it is that court which will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner in the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner was given liberty to file the petition in the appropriate Court having jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ directing respondent no. 2, Competent Authority, to issue directions to the Estate Officer, respondent no. 3, to waive the demand of Rs. 10,36,788/- on account of extension fees and for setting aside the demand raised by respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 17. 01. 05 and for direction to respondent no. 3 to give the possession of plot SCO no. 8, Sector 14, Gurgaon and also for registration and transfer of the said plot to the petitioner and a prohibition from realizing the amount of Rs 10,36,788/- demanded by letter dated 17. 01. 05 issued to the petitioner.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner was arrested on 11. 10. 87 in connection with seizure of heroine from one Mrs. Amar Sang who was going to Barcelona by flight number AZ-787 on 22. 8. 97 at IGI airport, New Delhi. In view of which a complaint dated 2. 11. 87 was filed against the petitioner under section 21, 25, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and subsequently an order for detention was passed against the petitioner by the joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, the Department of revenue, New Delhi under section 3 (1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Ordinance, 1988.
( 3 ) AGAINST the detention order a writ petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed and subsequently the petitioner filed a Special Leave petition being SLP (Crl.) No. 616 of 1989, which was also dismissed on 1. 4. 1991 as the period of detention was already over.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER a notice under section 68 (H) (1) NDPS Act, 1985 dated 11. 03. 1993 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2, to which a reply was filed by the petitioner. A notice under section 68h (1) was also issued to the Chairman, HUDA in respect of the properties of the petitioner including at commercial plot no. 8 in Sector 14, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, which was acquired from HUDA. It is asserted by the petitioner that during the period of notice any right of making construction or taking possession of the said property had ceased. While the matter was pending before the competent authority, the petitioner filed income tax record to show that the property was acquired lawfully and legally. However, a notice of attachment was issued to the Estate officer, respondent no. 3, by the Competent Authority, respondent no. 2. The petitioner contends that the issuance of notice under section 68-H of the NDPS act was sub judice as the petitioner has already filed a Writ petition challenging the detention order made by the respondent no. 2.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner an order dated 12. 1. 2004, under section 68 1 (1) (3) r/w section 68k of the NDPS Act, was passed by Respondent no. 2, forfeiting the aforesaid property of the petitioner and also an option for payment of fine of Rs. "14,90,000/- was made under Section 68 I (1) (3) r/w section 68 K of the NDPS act in lieu of forfeiture of the properties. The fine amount was deposited by the petitioner and an order for release of property was made by the respondent no. 2, Competent Authority, by order dated 9. 6. 2004
( 6 ) THE petitioner pleaded that he wrote a letter to respondent no. 3, estate officer, HUDA, for executing the conveyance deed who instead asked the petitioner to take the possession of the property first and the petitioner applied for same on 23. 12. 2004 In the mean time the respondent no. 3 raised a demand of Rs. 10,36,788/- by letter dated 17. 01. 2005 on account of the extension fees up to 2005 for issuing possession certificate.
( 7 ) THE letter dated 17. 01. 2005 of respondent no. 3 demanding Rs. 10,36,788/- on account of delayed construction has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that it is illegal and without authority of law and has been issued malafidely and in abuse of the statutory authority.
( 8 ) THE petitioner has relied upon (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 703 aamenbai Tayebaly and Ors. V
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
