UAPA | Appellant Authority Cannot Remand Case Back To Designated Authority Beyond Time Limit Prescribed U/S 25: J&K High Court

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal clarified that the appellate authority cannot remand the case potentially extending the statutory time limit beyond the prescribed 60 days for the designated authority to confirm or revoke the order.

"The statute, under Section 25(3) clearly prescribes a time limit of 60 days for the designated authority to either confirm or revoke the order of attachment. The legislature, in its wisdom while framing the statute, has envisioned that the designated authority “shall” within a period of 60 days either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment. In the present facts and circumstances, the appellate authority, has remanded the case back to the designated authority for reconsideration, it would tantamount to an extension of that 60 day limit prescribed by the statute." 

The observations were made while hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Designated Authority whereby the petitioner contested the lack of reasoning in the original order passed and the subsequent appellate decision that remanded the case back to the designated authority.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the powers of the appellate authority regarding seized property. The statute sets a 60-day time limit for the Designated Authority to confirm or revoke seizure orders, with an opportunity for the affected parties to make representations. The Appellate Authority can either confirm seizure orders or revoke them and release the property.

The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's remand of the case to the Designated Authority is not permissible under law, as it extends the statutory time limit set by Section 25(3) of the Act. The petition also asserted that the appellate authority should have made a decision based on the merits of the case rather than remanding it.

Upon examining the relevant statutory provisions, Justice Nargal emphasized the significance of adhering to prescribed timelines outlined in the statutory provisions and noted that Section 25(3) mandates that the Designated Authority must confirm or revoke the order of seizure within 60 days of production, allowing the affected person an opportunity to represent their case.

Simultaneously, Section 25(2) obligates the Investigating Officer to inform the Designated Authority within 48 hours of property seizure, the court said and stressed that these timelines are crucial and cannot be extended, establishing a clear limitation period for the investigating officer and the designated authority.

The court opined that remanding the case is not in line with the statute, which provides a specific time limit for the Designated Authority to act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the appellate authority could have determined the case's merits without extending the time limit. In light of the statute's scheme, the appellate authority was expected to confirm or revoke the order based on the merits.

"Once, the appellate authority was convinced that the order passed by the designated authority was bereft of any reasoning, then the appellate authority ought to have exercised the power under section 25 (6), by revoking such order of the designated authority and releasing the property. The appellate authority instead of acting in conformity with the provisions of Section 25(6), has remanded the case back to the designated authority for reconsideration and passing fresh order, which in a way tentamounts to extending the period of limitation of sixty days, provided under section 25(3) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, which is not permissible under law."

The court further added,

".. There is nothing which prevented the appellate authority from deciding the matter on its merit, without having to shift the onus back on the designated authority, leading to a situation, where the statutory time limit is extended, de hors the statute".

The court cited previous judgments to support its view that when a statute prescribes a particular way of performing an act and a specific consequence for non-compliance, that requirement is mandatory. It also noted that the Appellate Authority should have exercised its jurisdiction and made a decision on the merits of the case, taking into account all the material facts.

Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision, ensuring due process and an opportunity for all parties to be heard.

Case Title: G. M. Bhat v State of JK 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 266

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment