Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22433-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3706 of 2025 Petitioner :- Masroor Alam And 8 Others Respondent :- Custodian Of Enemy Property For India Connaught Place New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. 2. On 17.04.2025, we had passed the following order:- "1. The petitioners' counsel relies upon a judgement of this Court dated 02.03.2023 passed in Writ C No. 37811 of 2023 which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. By the instant petition, petitioners seek the following relief: "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing- commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property situated at 92/140, Heeraman Ka Purwa, Pioneer Compound, Jogi Wali Gali, Kanpur Nagar belonging to the petitioners." Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, at the outset, submits that the petitioners have remedy under section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1986. In view thereof, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to take remedy, as per law. It is clarified that in the event the representation of the petitioners is filed within four weeks from date, it is expected that the competent authority of the Central Government shall consider and decide the same on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the aggrieved parties, including, the State respondents. The status quo, in respect of the property, shall be continue during pendency and disposal of the representation of the petitioner, which shall abide by the order to be passed by the competent authority. It is clarified that the Court has not considered the claim and contentions of the parties on merit." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that liberty was granted to the petitioners of this petition who were also petitioners of above quoted petition apart from others, to avail the remedy under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and till disposal of the said representation the status quo in respect of the property was to continue subject to final order to be passed by the competent authority. 3. The petitioners being in possession continued to be in possession under the said order. They represented to the Custodian of Enemy Property of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India through e-mail on the email address jsffr@mha.gov.in and in paragraph 16 of the writ petition it has been averred that the concerned office has heard the matter and reserved his file for orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners orally submits that the orders were reserved in December 2024 and have not been pronounced. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after disposal of Special Leave Petition of the petitioners by Hon'ble Supreme Court, notices are being issued to the petitioners for vacation of the premises in question though the appeal is still pending. 6. Let the counsel for the opposite parties seek instructions as to whether the email as referred to in annexure 14 to the writ petition which has been sent to the e-mail address referred above has been received, if so whether any decision has taken place or orders have been reserved. 7. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, put up this case on 21.04.2025 as fresh. 8. Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties shall communicate this order to Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property, Lucknow for compliance 9. Let certified copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the parties today itself as per rules." 3. Today, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has received written instructions that representation was not submitted to the competent authority who is Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs but it was submitted to Custodian of Enemy Property who is not competent to decide such matter. He also submitted that the petitioner subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order, admitted his mistake in his email dated 20.04.2025. He has placed before us the said email. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that correction had been sought by the said email dated 20.04.2025 as only the addressee was incorrectly mentioned i.e. instead of Joint Secretary, Custodian of Enemy Property was mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for Union of India says that no representation was submitted in terms of order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).55416/2024 'Masroor Alam & ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.', according to which, only two weeks were granted for submitting the representation as referred therein with a further stipulation that if no such representation is filed within the time prescribed, the proceedings shall stand closed. 6. In view of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court which we have also read, we cannot interfere in the matter, as the representation was not submitted to the competent authority within the period prescribed. Any order to decide the representation keeping in mind the correction sought vide email dated 20.04.2025 would be in the teeth of order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench