Allowed

Md.nasir Ahmad v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC4 Dec 2015CWJC/14064/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging auction proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act, the Patna High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the application. The court noted the writ would not be maintainable as the impugned order was passed by the competent authority in Kolkata.

What did the court decide?

Writ application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent authority in Kolkata.

Md.nasir Ahmad Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14064 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Md. Nasir Ahmad S/O Md. Rahman Mian R/O Village- Partappur, PostUdant Rai Ke Bangra, P.S.- Manjtla Garh, District- Gopalganj

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue Office Of The Competent Authority Smugglers And Foreign Exchange, Manipulators, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003 2. The Competent Authority Smugglers And Foreign Exchange, Manipulators-20, British Indian Street (4th Floor), Calcutta-69 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chapra, Bihar 4. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector, Gopalganj 5. The District Magistrate-Cum Distt.- Auction Officer, Gopalganj, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Chandra Jha For the U.O.I. : Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma C.G.C. For the State : Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan AC to SC-33 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶5

3 04-12-2015 Heard the parties.

¶6

The petitioner is the son of Md. Rahman Mian and is aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj in auction case (Annexure-6). The District Magistrate initiated the said proceedings in compliance of the order dated 30.01.1990 passed by the competent authority ,Kolkata under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.

¶7

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents. Considering the statements made in the counter

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.14064 of 2012 (3) dt.04-12-2015

¶9

2/2

¶10

affidavit, counsel for the petitioner has stated that the writ application may be permitted to be withdrawn enabling him to take recourse to the remedy as is available to the petitioner. Be it noted that the State respondents as well as the counsel for the Union of India have taken a stand that the order was passed by the competent authority in Kolkata. The writ application would not be maintainable. Furthermore, if any remedy is to be claimed by the petitioner that may be by approaching the competent authority in Kolkata.

¶11

The writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with the said liberty.

¶12

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶13

Shyam/-

¶14

Md.nasir Ahmad v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.nasir Ahmad v. The Union Of India and Ors.

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

Dr. Archana Anupam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Das @ Kauwa Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Nath Bind and Ors. Vs Deo Nath Bind

Durgawati Devi And Others Vs Sudama Bhagat

Nagina Prasad Signh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hadish Ansari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.