The Court disposed of two writ petitions, noting that pending orders were revoked by a Supreme Court judgment. Petitioners were allowed liberty to seek remedy against served notices arising from the Supreme Court's decision.
Petitions disposed; liberty granted to petitioners to seek appropriate remedy against notices served.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1145 OF 2002
Iqbal Mohammed Memon ...Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1146 OF 2002
Hajra Iqbal Memon ...Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, & Anr. ...Respondents
Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari i/by M/s. S.K. Shrivastav & Co. for the Petitioners
Mr. R.F. Lambay for Union of India
Mr. S.R. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and
A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
2
P.C. :
There were several Writ Petitions filed. Some of them
were decided by the Court against the petitioners in those cases. The petitioners went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by judgment dated 8th July, 2009, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and also the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions. It gave liberty to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh. This liberty was to be exercised within the four corners of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioners in these two petitions submit that their petitions were not decided at all by the High Court, and, therefore, they were not the subjectmatter of the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court. Therefore, these matters are to be decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
but the learned counsel for the other side submits that after the Supreme Court gave its judgment, this Court applied the judgment, irrespective of pendency of these petitions to the present petitioners as well, which, in other words, would mean that the
3
orders impugned in these petitions against the petitioners already stand revoked. Therefore, we need not pass any further orders. However, notices have been served on the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved of those notices, they are at liberty to take any appropriate remedy which may be available to them in law, irrespective of the outcome of these Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
A.R. JOSHI, J.
Iqbal Mohammed Memon
Hajra Iqbal Memon
Competent Authority under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Bilal Nazki
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
