Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court held that since the impugned order challenging the Tribunal's constitution was not yet passed, the challenge was premature.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14400/2018
Chandra Mohan Bhati, S/o Shri Gendi Lal Bhati, aged about 53 years, R/o 17, Kalyan Nagar, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13610/2018
Kishan Singh, S/o Shri Gopal Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o 13, Jai Kishan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur in yhe State of Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG for UOI through VC assisted by Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj Mr. Nikhil Simlote on benalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur Mr. Anand Sharma Mr. Akshay Jain
(2 of 2)
[CW-14400/2018]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/11/2021
In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional vires of Sections 9 and 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act of 1988”). Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that subsequent to filing of the petitions by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, Section 9 of the Act of 1988 stands deleted from the statute. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners also did not pursue the challenge to the petitions to the said statutory provision.
This leaves us with the sole challenge of the petitioners to the vires of Section 32(2)(a) of the Act of 1988. It appears that the petitioners are facing show cause notices issued by the adjudicating authority under the Act of 1988 and the final order is not yet passed. The challenge to the constitution of the Tribunal at the hands of the petitioners is thus premature. These petitions are therefore disposed of making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions with respect to the constitutionality of the said provision. It would be open to the petitioners to take up such challenge in a fresh proceeding if need so arises in future.
With these clarifications, both the petitions are disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi-PS/33-34
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is constitutionally valid.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akil Kureshi
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
