GRIFFIN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, claims to have engaged itself in real-estate. About a few items of property allegedly owned and possessed by it, the respondent authorities began proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ("the Act").

(2.) First, the authorities issued the Ext.P1 show-cause notice under Section 24 of the Act. The petitioner replied, putting forward its defence. Later, the 2nd respondnet, the authority concerned, passed the Ext.P2 order; it rejected the petitioner's defence. Then to have the matter further processed, the same authority passed the Ext.P3 order, provisionally attaching the properties. The order seems to have been passed under Section 24 (4)(b) of the Act. Later, through the Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent placed the matter before the 3 rd respondent, who is the adjudicating authority. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking these reliefs:

(3.) From the above extract, I reckon that the petitioner has challenged all proceedings the respondent authorities have initiated: the Ext.P1 show cause notice, the Ext.P2 order of rejection, the of provisional attachment, and also the Ext.P4 order of reference. Indeed, Ext.P3 is the order capable of execution or enforcement. The other orders only aid the process. So it is the Ext.P3 that needs the judicial interference, if ever. But as the writ petition seems to be comprehensive in its challenging the very initiation of Benami proceedings, I adjudicate the merits of the writ petition.