ORDER

1. Regard being had to be similitude of the question involved, on the joint request, matters were heard analogously on admission and decided by this common order.

2. The facts are taken from W.P.No.5861 of 2024.

3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question (i) show cause notice dated 5.1.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued under section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1988’) and (ii) Provisional Attachment Order (P.A.O.) dated 5.1.2024 (Annexure P/2) issued under section 24(3) of Act of 1988.

4. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the show cause notice (Annexure P/1) and provisional attachment order (Annexure P/2) are called in question mainly on the ground that the alleged benami transaction has taken place prior to 1.11.2016, the date when Act of 1988 stood amended. In view of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & another v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (2023) 3 SCC 315, show cause notice and provisional attachment order is bad in law. Section 5 of Act of 1988 is declared as unconstitutional by the S