The appointment of a new Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is valid despite prior hearings, and petitioners cannot claim a right to the previous authority's decisions post-appointment.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)--Since these writ petitions raise common questions, they were with the consent of parties taken up for disposal together. For the sake of brevity, the Court notes the reliefs claimed in the lead writ petition being W.P. (C) 12846/2021. Those reliefs read thus:

a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction thereby setting aside the notification dated 08.10.2021 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, whereby it has extinguished the ability of the existing Member Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi to deliver orders/judgments in the matters in which orders are reserved by appointing a new officer to the post of Member, Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi, for Prohibition for Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, without providing any time period for him to pass orders/judgments though done earlier in previous notifications, and thereby directing the concerned Member, Adjudicating Authority to (i) pass orders/judgment within a specified time frame (2-3 months) in respect of all cases which he has reserved judgments after hearing arguments, in particular the case of the Petitioner which has now undergone two full rounds of hearing and where judgment has been reserved now for the second time as recently as on 16th September 2021;

OR ALTERNATIVELY

AND

2. When the writ petition was initially entertained, a learned Judge of the Court on 16 November 2021 proceeded to pass the following interim order:

"5. Issue notice. Ms.Nidhi Raman, CGSC accepts notice. She prays for, and is granted, two weeks' time to obtain instructions and file a reply, explaining the stand of the respondent as also how this issue can be resolved. In its reply, the respondent will also give a comprehensive list of the matters in which judgment has been reserved by the then incumbent officers holding the post of Member, Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

6. Response thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

7. In case, before the next date, the matters are once again listed for arguments before the Adjudicating Authority, it will be open for the petitioners to make a request to the said Authority for adjourning the matter to await the outcome of the present petition, which request, if made, will be considered favourably by the Adjudicating Authority."

3. The grievance of the petitioners essentially is that on more than one occasion the Adjudicating Authority constituted under the Prohibition for Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ["1988 Act"] has been transferred out after final hearing of matters had been concluded and orders reserved.

4. From the facts which are disclosed in the writ petition it appears that proceedings against the petitioner in the lead matter commenced in February 2021. Undisputedly pursuant to amendments introduced in Section 7 of the 1988 Act by Finance Act, 2021, the competent authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeited of property) Act, 1976 [SAFEMA] was nominated and appointed to act as the Adjudicating Authority under the 1988 Act also. It is the case of the pe