S.8 UAPA | Intent Of Notifying Place 'Used For Unlawful Association' Is Not To Seize Properties Of Innocent Owners: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.Section 8 of the UAPA grants power to the...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.
Section 8 of the UAPA grants power to the Central Government to notify any place, which in its opinion, is used for unlawful association which has been declared unlawful under the enactment.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while dealing with a plea challenging Central Government's notification notifying a property situated in city's Jamia Nagar area as being used for carrying out activities of Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates.
This was after the PFI and its alleged associates and affiliates were declared as an unlawful association under the UAPA in September 2022.
The plea, moved by one Mohd. Arif Ansari, also challenged Delhi Police's notice under UAPA for furnishing information or documents with respect to the property and a direction upon the authorities to release, de-seal and unlock the same.
Advocate Shahrukh Alam appearing for the petitioner stated that Ansari is the lawful owner property and had leased it to another individual for eleven months and not to PFI or to any of its alleged associates or affiliates.
She further submitted that Ansari was not a member of the PFI and had no knowledge that the tenant was a member of the banned organisation or that the house was being used for carrying out unlawful activities.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petition was not maintainable as Ansari had an alternative effective remedy of filing an application before the concerned District Judge under Section 8(8) of the UAPA.
The court thus disposed of the plea with liberty to Ansari to file an application before the District Judge.
“Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had initially appeared before the ACP and made a request for de-sealing of the premises, this Court condones the delay in approaching the Court of the District Judge. Accordingly, this Court directs that in the event, the petitioner files an application before the Court of District Judge within a week, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay/ laches,” the court said.
It further directed the District Judge to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
“This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open,” it added.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Shahrukh Alam, Mr. Md. Arif Hussain, Mr. Shantanu and Ms. Nehal A. Siddiquee, Advs
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC, Criminal wih Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Arjun Singh Kadian and Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Title: MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229