IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.45272-45273/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. C. AMBARISHA AGED 30 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/O. 716, KABIR ROAD, WARD 3, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563 135.
2. SMT. P NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/O. 716, KABIR ROAD, WARD 3, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-513 135. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V G TIGADI, ADV. FOR SRI. K S NARESH SANTHOSH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, H NO. 7/1-2, PRIYANKA VILLA, RAMANNA GARDEN, KATTIGENAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 045.
2. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR, “UTSAV”, NO. 64/1, G N CHETTY ROAD, T NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K N MOHAN, SPL. PP FOR R1, SRI. R.VEERENDRA SHARMA, CGC FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF FREEZING ORDER DATED 14.3.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 12.4.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEX-D & E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court assailing the orders dated 14.03.2017 and 12.04.2017 impugned at Annexures-D and E to the petitions.
2. The respondents, on appearance have filed their objection statement and the application for vacating the interim order. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petitions since, the petitioners have the remedy of appeal as provided under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The respondents in that light have referred to the provision as contained in Section 68(O) of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would however contend that in the instant case, since the seizure and freezing of the house being without jurisdiction, the writ petitions would be maintainable when orders are passed without jurisdiction and without the power available under the Act.
4. Though such contention is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners and reference is made to Section 68(B)(e) and Section 68(F) of the Act to contend that the house which had been purchased by the petitioners much prior to the alleged offence could not have been seized, in my opinion, the same can be raised as a ground in the proposed appeal which is provided under the Act. Merely because it is contended that a portion of the order is contrary to the provisions of the Act, when it is seen that the Competent Authority has preceded in the matter, it cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction. However, the correctness or otherwise of the order including the contention of the seizure being illegal can be tested in an appeal to be filed by the petitioners.
5. Therefore, when the Act provides the remedy of appeal, I decline to exercise the discretion to entertain the instant writ petitions. However, since at the first instance, this Court had granted the interim order and is presently relegating the petitioners to the remedy of appeal, the benefit of the interim order is continued in favour of the petitioners, till the appeal is taken up for consideration by the Appellate Authority subject to the condition that such appeal is filed within three weeks from this day. Registry is directed to return the papers, if any sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. In view of disposal of the petitions, I.A.No.2/2017 is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST