Disposed

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Andors

Bombay HC5 Feb 2014WP/1389/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on admissions regarding an alternative remedy, disposed of a writ petition challenging a communication from the Custodian of Enemy Property. The court directed the petitioners to raise objections before the Custodian within two months, granted a personal hearing, and ensured the ad-interim order's operation contingent on timely compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to file objections with the Custodian within two months; granted personal hearing; extended ad-interim order conditionally.

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

1389.11 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2011

¶5

Hameed s/o. Abdulla Bajaman and others.

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.K. Thigale, Additional Govt. Pleader, for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶11

Mr. N.S. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1]Heard both sides.

¶16

2]When this writ petition was placed before us
and it was submitted that the same challenges the
communication dated 3rd December, 2010, which can be
construed as an order, an objection was raised to the
maintainability of the writ petition, by the counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2. He invited our
attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No.2 by Dinesh Singh, the custodian of

¶17

{2}

¶18

1389.11 wp.odt

¶19

Enemy Properties for India and, particularly, para.4
thereof.

¶20

3]It was submitted that the Custodian of Enemy
Property is obliged in law and by virtue of Section 6
of the Enemy Properties Act, 1968, to consider the
objections raised and by the transferee, so also, to
pass orders in terms of the same, and hence, we
enquired from the learned advocate for the petitioner,
as to how this writ petition can now be pursued.

¶21

4]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has no objection to appear before
the said Custodian and raise all objections,
including, the grounds raised on the writ petition.
He submits that until such objections are considered
and an order in terms of Section 6 of the Act is
passed, the ad-interim order passed on 1st March, 2011,
by this court, be continued.

¶22

5]Having noted these contentions and the stand
taken by the respondent No.2, in the light of Section
6 of the Enemy Properties Act, 1968, we are of the
opinion, that the writ petition can be disposed of, on
the ground that the petitioners have an alternate,
equally efficacious remedy, to raise all objections
before the Custodian and the Custodian will then
consider the same and pass appropriate orders in terms
of Section 6 of the Act of 1968.

¶23

6]We feel that this petition need not be kept
pending because the communication dated 3rd December,

¶24

{3}

¶25

1389.11 wp.odt

¶26

2010, has not been termed as an order, but a letter.
This is not taking away any of the rights of the
petitioners and, particularly, to raise objections.
Once this legal position is clarified and objections
are allowed to be raised even belatedly, which would
be dealt with and considered, this petition can be
disposed of.

¶27

7]Hence, we pass the following order:-

¶28

[a]On petitioners' raising
objections to the communication dated 3rd
December, 2010 and lodging them with the
Custodian, within a period of two months
from today, the Custodian shall pass an
order in accordance with law, after hearing
the petitioners. In other words, personal
hearing would be granted.

¶29

[b]If the objections are filed
within the stipulated period, the Custodian
will pass a reasoned order, in accordance
with law. All contentions with regard to
merits of said objections, are kept open.

¶30

[c]We clarify that, in the event,
the petitioners fail to lodge their
objections within two months from today, the
Custodian can proceed on the footing that
the communication dated 3rd December, 2010,
is an order traceable to Section 6 of the
Enemy Properties Act, 1968. Thereafter, he

¶31

{4}

¶32

1389.11 wp.odt

¶33

is free to take further steps, in accordance
with law.

¶34

[d]The ad-interim order passed
earlier will not operate beyond the period
of two months. However, if the objections

¶35

are lodged within stipulated time, the
ad-interim order passed by this Court on 1st
March, 2011, shall continue to operate
without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, till the
Custodian passes the final order and duly
communicates it to the petitioners.

¶36

7]With these directions, writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.

¶37

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶38

grt/-

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Fishermans Co-Operati E Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vithalrao Genba Mete Vs Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate and Others

Mahesh Tukaram Bharshankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakalabai Trimbak Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.