Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.
R. Sarathkumar - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, Public (Election) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 409 & 445 of 2018
Decided On : 23-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Ravi, for M/s. Rugan & Arya
For the Respondents: Niranjan Rajagopal, G. Janane, Chevaran Mohan, A.N. Thambidurai
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the relevant legal provisions and procedural requirements for the return of seized amounts in the context of demonetization.
Headnote:
Writ Appeal - Demonetization - Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules 2017, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the legal provisions related to demonetization, seizure of currency notes, and the rules for depositing confiscated notes. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the relevant provisions and procedural requirements for the return of the seized amount.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant filed a Writ Appeal against the order closing the Writ Petition, seeking the refund of a seized amount of Rs.9 lakhs. The Respondents argued that due to demonetization, the amount could not be returned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ Petition was not related to demonetization and directed the concerned authorities to return the seized amount by adhering to the relevant provisions and procedural requirements.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the order closing the Writ Petition and the refund of the seized amount in the context of demonetization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to follow the Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules 2017 and other relevant legal provisions for the return of the seized amount.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the Learned Single Judge and directed the concerned authorities to return the seized amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the Appellant within a specified timeframe.
M. Venugopal, J.
W.A. No. 445 of 2018
1. The Appellant has preferred the intra court Writ Appeal (as an aggrieved person) as against the order dated 01.9.2017 in W.P.No.23605 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in closing the Writ Petition.
2. Earlier, this Court, while passing the order in W.P. No. 23605 of 2017 (filed by the Appellant as the Writ Petitioner), at paragraphs 4 and 5, had observed as follows :
"4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the order dated 16.12.2016 made in W.P. (Civil) No.906 of 2016 has observed as follows:
'...We further direct that no other Court shall entertain, hear or decide any Writ Petition/proceedings on the issue or in relation to or arising from the decision of the Government of India to demonetize the old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- as the entire issue in relation thereto is pending consideration before this Court in the present proceedings'.
5. In view of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner can approach only the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India seeking for the relief sought for in the present writ petition.",
and resultantly closed the writ petition. However, the Learned Single Judge observed that it is open to the Petitioner (Appellant) to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking for appropriate remedy.
3. Assailing the correctness, validity and legality of the impugned order dated 01.9.2017 in W.P.No.23605 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Single Judge, based on misconception that the writ petition falling under the category of petitions that was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P.(C).No.906 of 2016 etc., [reported in 2017 (1) SCC 388] shall not be entertained by any High Court, but to be filed only before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed the order.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a plea that the Writ Petition is not 'on the issue or in relation to or arising from the decision of the Government of India to demonetize' and as such, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned order in W.P.No.23605 of 2017 dated 01.9.2017 is inapplicable.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is only to direct the Respondents to refund to him a sum of Rs.9 lakhs that was seized from him on a misapprehension and later on, after clearing the misapprehension, the amount was directed to be refunded to him as per order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Tirunelveli. However, the said amount is not refunded till date.
6. In substance, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant fervently takes a stand that the Authorities concerned owe a duty to refund the amount of Rs.9 lakhs in question to him and viewed in that perspective, the Writ Appeal is to be allowed by this Court.
7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 that the seized amount of Rs.9 lakhs was with reference to 2016 General Elections for the Legislative Assembly in respect of the State of Tamil Nadu and after obtaining clearance from the Income Tax Department, through its letter dated 28.11.2016, the amount became liable to be released. However, it is represented on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 that due to demonetisation, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- denomination notes could not be dealt with for the purpose of returning the same to the Appellant.
8. The Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 fairly submits that the Election Commission of India took up this issue before the Reserve Bank of India and the Union of India, Ministry of Finance clarified that the Instructions of the Reserve Bank of India namely the Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules 2017, which were brought into force on 12.5.2017, can be applied for the said purpose.
9. In t
