Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 121521 (ALL)

ASIF NASEEM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (HOME) GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/1029/2025 · 2025-02-06

Ajai Kumar Srivastava I, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7818-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1029 of 2025 Petitioner :- Asif Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvendra Singh,Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. We have heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner for substantial length of time. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, that the petitioner will have sufÏcient opportunity to present his side of the case before the Special Court, as the Special Court has only issued a notice under Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016) and no order has been passed as yet. 3. The counsel for respondent No.2 has also pointed out that the order under challenge has been passed only by accepting the application moved under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that the restoration of the property of the claimant shall be done only after the owner of the property has been heard under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016, and that all such matters have been listed before the court concerned on 11.02.2025. 4. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order dated 11.12.2024, and his locus would arise only after notices are issued, and he submits his reply, and a final order is passed by the Special Court with regard to the restoration of the claimant's property after an auction is ordered of the property of the petitioner in pursuance thereof. 5. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has insisted that the order dated 11.12.2024 is final in nature. 6. This Court had made a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to how he got notice of the order dated 11.12.2024 when he has specifically argued that no notice has been issued to the petitioner till date under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the grounds of the writ petition, but we find that there is absence of pleadings in this regard.It is a well-known practice of this Court that the grounds are signed only by the counsel who has drafted the petition. It is the pleadings which are signed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not made any pleadings in any paragraphs relating to non-service of notice under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016 and the counsel for the respondent No.2 has specifically raised this fact that Asif Naseem, the petitioner, is in Central jail, Varanasi and he could not have got hold of the application made by the Enforcement Directorate, a copy of which has been filed at page No.93 onwards, without it being served upon him in Central Jail, Varanasi, we find that the case set up by the petitioner that he did not get any notice of the order dated 11.12.2024 ofÏcially but on receiving notice under Rule 3A dated 24.01.2025, he started making enquiries and found out about the order dated 11.12.2024. It has been orally argued that the petitioner downloaded the order dated 11.12.2024 from the internet. We are not convinced as he is in jail since past three years. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has tried to touch upon the merits of the orders passed by this Court on 01.07.2024 and on 16.12.2024 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.20172 of 2023 but we are of the considered opinion that collateral challenge to such orders cannot be made in this writ petition. The Special Court in its order dated 11.12.2024 has mentioned issuance of notice on 12.11.2024 and again on 15.11.2024 for publication in different newspapers. 8. Since the petitioner has been issued notice under Rule 3A, he has remedy of making his submissions before the Special Court. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Mahesh Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench