राज्‍य उपभोक्‍ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ

(मौखिक)

परिवाद संख्‍या-82/2024

राम सिंह

बनाम

शाइनसिटी इन्‍फ्रा प्रोजेक्‍ट्स प्रा0लि0 व अन्‍य

दिनांक- 06.11.2024

माननीय न्‍यायमूर्ति श्री अशोक कुमार, अध्‍यक्ष द्वारा उदघोषित

निर्णय

पुकार हुई। परिवादी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी उपस्थित हैं। विपक्षी की ओर से कोई उपस्थित नहीं है।

प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख परिवादी द्वारा निम्‍न अनुतोष प्रदान किए जाने हेतु योजित किया:-

"I. DIRECT the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of about Rs.4,40,176/- (Rupee Four lacs forty thousand one hundred seventy six only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of the refund.

II. DIRECT the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent with effect from August, 2019 till the date of the refund of the entire amount as prayed.

III. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay appropriate compensation and damages which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

IV. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant in order to purchase the unit as on date in view of the default committed by the opposite parties in view of the principle of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Fortune Infrastructure versus Trevor reported in (2018) 5 SCC 42.

V. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay Punitive Damages to the complainant which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

-2-

VI. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant by payment of the adequate amount in order to purchase property as on the date of the filing of the complaint case.

VII. Allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards cost of the case.

VIII. Any other order which this Hon'ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.”

इस न्‍यायालय द्वारा परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी को दिनांक 30.07.2024 को अंगीकरण के बिन्‍दु पर सुना। तदनुसार निम्‍न विस्‍तृत आदेश पारित‍ किया:-

“30-07-2024

The case is called out.

Heard Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant.

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following relief:-

"I. DIRECT the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of about Rs.4,40,176/- (Rupee Four lacs forty thousand one hundred seventy six only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of the refund.

II. DIRECT the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent with effect from August, 2019 till the date of the refund of the entire amount as prayed.

III. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay appropriate compensation and damages which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

IV. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant in order to purchase the unit as on date in view of the default  committed  by  the  opposite  parties  in  view  of   the

-3-

principle of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Fortune Infrastructure versus Trevor reported in (2018) 5 SCC 42.

V. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay Punitive Damages to the complainant which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

VI. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant by payment of the adequate amount in order to purchase property as on the date of the filing of the complaint case.

VII. Allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards cost of the case.

VIII. Any other order which this Hon'ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.

The submission of learned Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant is a government employee and has been impressed by the opposite parties for providing him a plot situated in District Lucknow. The complainant after getting verification and the assurance given by the opposite party/Director/Owner of the opposite party Company deposited huge amount of Rs. 4,40,176/- till 2017. Neither the plot is provided/handed over; nor the amount deposited with interest, hence the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in writ petition has passed an order while entertaining the writ petition against the opposite party. A copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court will be provided by the Counsel for the complainant for ready reference to this Court within a week.

As prayed list again as fresh on 08-08-2024.”

उपरोक्‍त आदेश पारित किए जाने के उपरान्‍त अगली निश्चित तिथि दिनांक 08.08.2024 को विपक्षी कम्‍पनी की ओर से कोई अधिवक्‍ता अथवा प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित नहीं हुआ एवं परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता द्वारा इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख  माननीय  उच्‍च

-4-

न्‍यायालय द्वारा CRIMINAL  MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-20172  of  2023 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 01.07.2024 की प्रति प्रस्‍तुत की, जिसका परिशीलन करने के उपरान्‍त उपरोक्‍त               माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय के आदेश को उल्लिखित करते हुए विस्‍तृत आदेश दिनांक 08.08.2024 को पारित किया गया, जो निम्‍नवत् है:-

''08.08.2024

परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी को सुना।

विपक्षीगण को नोटिस द्वारा पंजीकृत डाक एवं दस्‍ती              दो सप्‍ताह की अवधि में जारी की जावे।

पूर्व तिथि दिनांक 30.07.2024 को निम्‍न आदेश पारित किया गया था:-

“30-07-2024

The case is called out.

Heard Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant.

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following relief:-

"I. DIRECT the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of about Rs.4,40,176/- (Rupee Four lacs forty thousand one hundred seventy six only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of the refund.

II. DIRECT the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent with effect from August, 2019 till the date of the refund of the entire amount as prayed.

III. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay appropriate compensation and damages which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

-5-

IV. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant in order to purchase the unit as on date in view of the default committed by the opposite parties in view of the principle of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Fortune Infrastructure versus Trevor reported in (2018) 5 SCC 42.

V. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay Punitive Damages to the complainant which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

VI. DIRECT the opposite parties to adequately compensate the complainant by payment of the adequate amount in order to purchase property as on the date of the filing of the complaint case.

VII. Allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards cost of the case.

VIII. Any other order which this Hon'ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.

The submission of learned Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant is a government employee and has been impressed by the opposite parties for providing him a plot situated in District Lucknow. The complainant after getting verification and the assurance given by the opposite party/Director/Owner of the opposite party Company deposited huge amount of Rs. 4,40,176/- till 2017. Neither the plot is provided/handed over; nor the amount deposited with interest, hence the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in writ petition has passed an order while entertaining the writ petition against the opposite party. A copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court will be provided by the Counsel for the complainant for ready reference to this Court within a week.

As prayed list again as fresh on 08-08-2024.”

उक्‍त आदेश के संबंध में अपेक्षित आदेश की छायाप्रति CRIMINAL  MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-20172  of   2023                     

माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय दिनांक 01.07.2024 परिवादी के विद्वान   अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी द्वारा प्रस्‍तुत की गयी, जिसमें माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा निम्‍न आदेश पारित किया गया है:-

-6-

“Heard Sri Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel for respondent no.1 and 4, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav for respondent no.2, Sri Rohit Tripathi for respondent no.3, Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey for respondent no.5 to 8, Sri Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as an interim measure respondents be directed to return back the money deposited by the petitioner and other investors with 18 per cent interest per annum to them from the date of deposit before the respondent no.9, the defaulter company.

Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, Enforcement Directorate, has submitted that the petitioners have statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the last proviso whereof provides that the special court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimants for the purpose of restoration of the property in dispute during the pendency of trial. He has further submitted that the money being sought to be refunded to the petitioners is defined under the definition of "property" in Section 2(1) (v) of the Act aforesaid.

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 2(1) (v) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 quoted hereinbelow :

Section 2. Definition.

(1) (v) "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located;

Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term "property" includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled offences;

Section 8. Adjudication.

(1)On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason

-7-

to believe that any person has committed an [offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime] [Substituted by Act 21 of 2009, Section 5, for "offence under section 3".], it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized [or frozen] [Inserted by Act No. 2 OF 2013] under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money- laundering and confiscated by the Central Government:

Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person:

Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property.

(2)The Adjudicating Authority shall, after

(a)considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub- section (1);

(b)hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf; and

(c)taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him,

by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering:

Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering.

 (3)Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or [record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or

-8-

freezing of the seized or frozen property] [Substituted for the words "record seized under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, such attachment or retention of the seized property" by Act No. 2 OF 2013] or record shall

(a)continue during [investigation for a period not exceeding [three hundred and sixty-five days] [Inserted by Finance Act, 2018 (Act No. 13 of 2018) dated 29.3.2018.] or] the pendency of the proceedings relating to any [offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and]

(b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58 B or sub-section (2A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority]

[Explanation. For the purposes of computing the period of three hundred and sixty-five days under clause (a), the period during which the investigation is stayed by any court under any law for the time being in force shall be excluded.]

(4)Where the provisional order of attachment made under sub- section (1) of section 5 has been confirmed under sub-section (3), the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall forthwith take the [possession of the property attached under section 5 or frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that if it is not practicable to take possession of a property frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17, the order of confiscation shall have the same effect as if the property had been taken possession of.]

(5)[ Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government.

(6)Where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it.

-9-

(7)Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or having commenced but could not be concluded, the Special Court shall, on an application moved by the Director or a person claiming to be entitled to possession of a property in respect of which an order has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 8, pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of the property, as the case may be, involved in the offence of money- laundering after having regard to the material before it.]

[(8) Where a property stands confiscated to the Central Government under sub-section (5), the Special Court, in such manner as may be prescribed, may also direct the Central Government to restore such confiscated property or part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering:

Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of money laundering]:

[Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed.]

This Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case finds that the petitioner, who claims himself to be investor in the Company of respondent no.9, invested certain amount, details whereof have been given in the petition. This Court is of the view that during the pendency of the writ petition the special court be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Section 8 of the Act aforesaid within a period of five months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with the claim. Certified copy of this order along with claims shall be filed before Special Court within 10 days. The decision shall be taken by the special court on the claim in accordance with law and on the basis of material brought before the Court by the petitioner in support of his claim.

List this petition again after five months i.e., on 16.12.2024.

-10-

On the next date the court below will send the copy of the order passed by it to this Court.

The District Judge concerned will see that the matters are assigned in such a manner so that the special court is able to decide the claims within the time frame provided by this court and all assistance to the special court for deciding these cases on priority basis shall be provided.

Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India informs that prayer for extradition of main accused, Rashid Naseem, who is hiding in Dubai has been forwarded to the Government of United Arab of Emirates but as yet it has not responded.

The Ministry of External Affairs is expected to send reminder to the Government of United Arab of Emirates for expediting the process of extradition of aforesaid accused and the progress of efforts made by the Ministry of External Affairs shall be brought before this Court on the next date fixed by filing an affidavit of a responsible official of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Progress report in sealed cover presented by counsel for Enforcement Directorate, Sri Rohit Tripathi, is taken on record. Affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of State of UP is also taken on record. Status report submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of SFIO is also taken on record.

Sri Ravi Gautam, Investigating Officer of this case is present, Dr. Pemmaiah, Deputy Director and Supervising Officer of this case for Enforcement Directorate is also present. Umesh Chandra Gupta, Senior Assistant Director for SFIO is also present. Their personal appearances are exempted until further orders.”

माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय के ऊपर उल्लिखित आदेश का अनुपालन प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद में शत-प्रतिशत रूप से सुनिश्चित किए जाने हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है।

तदनुसार अगली निश्चित तिथि पर विपक्षीगण द्वारा एवं परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता द्वारा माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में की गयी समस्‍त प्रक्रिया का विवरण उल्लिखित करते हुए प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्‍तुत किया  जावे,  जिससे  कि

-11-

अगली निश्चित तिथि पर अपेक्षित कार्यवाही सुनिश्चित की जा सके।

तदनुसार प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद को पुन: दिनांक 06.11.2024 को नवीन वाद सूची में सुनवाई हेतु सूचीबद्ध किया जावे।''    

विपक्षी कम्‍पनी की ओर से लगभग डेढ़ वर्ष की अवधि व्‍यतीत होने के बाद भी आज दिनांक तक कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ। तदनुसार परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी को विस्‍तार से सुना।       

परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता श्री पियूष मणि त्रिपाठी द्वारा न्‍यायालय के परिशीलन हेतु माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा  CRIMINAL  MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-5453  of   2024 Suman Rai Versus Union of India Through Director of Enforcement, Deptt. Of Revenue, Ministry of Finance And 2 Others में पारित निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 08.08.2024 की प्रति प्रस्‍तुत की, जो निम्‍नवत् है:-

“Heard Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.S.G.I. for the respondents/Union of India as well as Rohit Tripathi, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2/Enforcement Directorate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents be directed to return back the money deposited by the petitioner and other investors with 18 per cent interest per annum to them from the date of deposit before the respondent no.3, the defaulter company.

Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, Enforcement Directorate, has submitted that the petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the last proviso whereof provides that the special court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimants for the purpose of restoration of the property in dispute during the pendency of trial. He has further submitted that the money being sought to be refunded to the petitioners is defined under the definition of "property" in Section 2(1) (v) of the Act aforesaid.

-12-

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 2(1) (v) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 quoted hereinbelow:

Section 2. Definition.

(1) (v) "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located;

Explanation.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term "property" includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled offences;

Section 8. Adjudication.

(1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an [offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime] [Substituted by Act 21 of 2009, Section 5, for "offence under section 3".], it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized [or frozen] [Inserted by Act No. 2 OF 2013] under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government:

Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person:

Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property.

-13-

(2)The Adjudicating Authority shall, after

(a)considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub- section (1);

(b)hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf; and

(c)taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering:

Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering.

(3)Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or [record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property] [Substituted for the words "record seized under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, such attachment or retention of the seized property" by Act No. 2 OF 2013] or record shall

(a)continue during [investigation for a period not exceeding [three hundred and sixty-five days] [Inserted by Finance Act, 2018 (Act No. 13 of 2018) dated 29.3.2018.] or] the pendency of the proceedings relating to any [offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and]

(b)[ become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58 B or sub-section (2A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority]

[Explanation. For the purposes of computing the period of three hundred and sixty-five days under clause (a), the period during which the investigation is stayed by any court under any law for the

-14-

time being in force shall be excluded.]

(4)Where the provisional order of attachment made under sub- section (1) of section 5 has been confirmed under sub-section (3), the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall forthwith take the [possession of the property attached under section 5 or frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that if it is not practicable to take possession of a property frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17, the order of confiscation shall have the same effect as if the property had been taken possession of.]

(5)[ Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government.

(6)Where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it.

(7)Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or having commenced but could not be concluded, the Special Court shall, on an application moved by the Director or a person claiming to be entitled to possession of a property in respect of which an order has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 8, pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of the property, as the case may be, involved in the offence of money-laundering after having regard to the material before it.]

[(8) Where a property stands confiscated to the Central Government under sub-section (5), the Special Court, in such manner as may be prescribed, may also direct the Central Government to restore such confiscated property or part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering:

-15-

Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of money laundering]:

[Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed.]

This Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case finds that the petitioner, who claims himself to be investor in the Company of respondent no.3, invested certain amount, details whereof have been given in the petition. This Court is of the view that during the pendency of the writ petition the special court be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per Section 8 of the Act aforesaid within a period of five months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with the claim.

Certified copy of this order along with claims shall be filed before Special Court within 10 days. The decision shall be taken by the special court on the claim in accordance with law and on the basis of material brought before the Court by the petitioner in support of his claim.

The writ petition stands disposed of.”

परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता ने अपने कथन में बल दिया कि माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय के उपरोक्‍त निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 08.08.2024  CRIMINAL  MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-5453  of  2024 के परिप्रेक्ष्‍य में प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद को भी इस न्‍यायालय द्वारा अंतिम रूप से स्‍वीकृत करते हुए निस्‍तारित किया जावे।

मेरे द्वारा परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता को विस्‍तार से सुना तथा परिवाद पत्रावली का प‍रीक्षण एवं परिशीलन किया।

माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय के ऊपर उल्लिखित आदेशों/निर्णय का सम्‍यक  परिशीलन  करने  के  उपरान्‍त  परिवादी  के  विद्वान

-16-

अधिवक्‍ता के कथन में बल पाया जाता है कि प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद को इस न्‍यायालय के सम्‍मुख लम्बित रखने का कोई औचित्‍य नहीं है। अतएव माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा पारित ऊपर उल्लिखित निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 08.08.2024 के परिप्रेक्ष्‍य में प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद को भी उपरोक्‍त निर्णय एवं आदेश के अनुसार ही अन्तिम रूप से निस्‍तारित किया जाता है।

तदनुसार परिवादी द्वारा माननीय उच्‍च न्‍यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णय एवं आदेश CRIMINAL  MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-5453  of   2024 दिनांकित 08.08.2024 का शतप्रतिशत अनुपालन उल्लिखित समयावधि में सुनिश्चित किया जावे।

आशुलिपि‍क से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि‍ वह इस निर्णय/आदेश को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।

     (न्‍यायमूर्ति अशोक कुमार)

अध्‍यक्ष

जितेन्‍द्र आशु0

कोर्ट नं0-1