Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner and thus render justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:   19..10..2010

CORAM

THE HONBLE Mr.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.23141 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
--------------

P.Pugalenthi,
Co-ordination Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Peoples Rights Forum,
No.5, 4th Floor,
Sunkurama Street,
Chennai  600 001. ..Petitioner.

Vs.

1. The Ministry of Home Affairs,
    rep. by Home Secretary,
    New Delhi  110 001.

2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal,
    Delhi High Court Building,
    Sher Shah Road, New Delhi,
    rep. by its Registrar. ..Respondents.


PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner and thus render justice.
--------------

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondents :: Mr.M.Ravindran,
   Addl. Solicitor General of India
   assisted by J.Ravindran,
   Assistant Solicitor General  I.
--------------

O R D E R
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE &
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J

Heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent namely., the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short the Act)

3.  It appears that the first respondent  Union of India issued a notification dated 17th May, 2010 under Section 3(1) and proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (in short LTTE) as an unlawful association. The petitioner-Forum said to have filed a petition claiming itself as the sympathizer of LTTE and have a right to appear before the Tribunal. It was contended that the Tribunal is required to adjudicate whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association as an unlawful association. It was contended by Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Forum before the Tribunal that the Tribunal must give an opportunity of hearing before declaring a person or association under the said Act. The Tribunal rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-Forum on the grounds inter alia that the Tribunal had the occasion to consider the submissions made by the other persons including Mr.Vaiko and none of the submissions made by Mr.Radhakrishnan travel beyond the arguments advanced by Mr.Vaiko.

4. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner before us contended that LTTE is not present in India and only its sympathizers, supporters and agents are present in India. In view of the non-existence of the LTTE in India and in view of the alleged presence of its sympathizers, supporters and agents notices under Section 4(2) of the Act should not only have to be sent to the LTTE in Sri Lanka but also to the alleged sympathizers, supporters and agents who are present in India. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, unless the process prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act is completed the process of adjudication under Section 4(3) of the Act could not have been commenced by the Tribunal.

5. On the other hand, Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that the Tribunal while proceeding for adjudication has fully complied with the requirements of the Act.

6. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to declare any association to be unlawful by issue of notification in the official gazette, if the Central Government is of the opinion that such an association has become an unlawful association. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides that such notification issued shall specify the grounds on which it is issued and such other particulars as the Central Government may consider necessary. However, the Central Government is not required to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest. Section 4 of the Act provides that if any association is declared unlawful under Section 3, the Central Government shall within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification refer it to the Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful. The Tribunal shall thereupon call upon the association affected by notice to show cause and then, after holding an enquiry and adjudicating upon, either confirm or cancel the said notification. For better appreciation Section 4 of the Act is quoted herein below: -
4. Reference to Tribunal. (1) Where any association has been declared unlawful by a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3, the Central Government shall, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification under the said sub-
section, refer the notification to the Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the
Tribunal shall call upon the association affected by notice in writing to show cause, within thirty days from the date of the service of such notice, why the association should not be declared unlawful.

(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the association or the office-bearers or members thereof, the-Tribunal shall hold an inquiry in the manner specified in section 9 and after calling for such further information as it may consider necessary from the Central Government or from any office-bearer or member of the association, it shall decide whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association to be unlawful and make, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, such order as it may deem fit either confirming the declaration made in notification or cancelling the same

(4) The order of the Tribunal made under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette.

7.  Section 7 of the Act lays down the provision with regard to the power of the Central Government to prohibit the use of funds of the unlawful association. According to this section, after the association has been declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3, the Central Government may issue prohibitory order for the use of funds of unlawful association. Sub-section (4) of Section 7 gives the right to any person aggrieved by such prohibitory order to make an application to the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such person voluntarily resides or carries on business to establish that the moneys, securities or credits in respect of which prohibitory order has been made are not being used or are not intended to be used for the purpose of the unlawful association. On receipt of such application, the Court of District Judge shall decide the question. Apart from that on a perusal of sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Act, it is manifestly clear that any person aggrieved by the notification issued in respect of a place under sub-section (1) or by an order made under sub-section (3) of sub-section (4) may, within 30 days from the date of the notification or order, make an application to the Court of the District Judge for declaring that the place has not been used for the purpose of unlawful association, and the Court of District Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law.
8. In the impugned order, while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has observed as under: -
3. Hence, the statement of Mr.M.Ashok Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, CID, Chennai, Tamil Nadu was then partly recorded. Since even at the conclusion of this exercise Mr.Chandrasekaran was not available, on the request of Mr.Ruben the proceedings were adjourned to 12.30 p.m. On resumption of proceedings, a petition under Section 4(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been moved by Mr.M.Radhakrishnan on behalf of Tamil Nadu Peoples Rights Forum which admittedly is not a registered entity. Counsel for Mr.Nedumaran as well as Tamil Nadu Peoples Rights Forum have been heard.
4. As has already been adverted to, this Tribunal had the occasion to consider the submissions made by Mr.Vaiko on his similar request. So far as Tamil Nadu Peoploes Rights Forum is concerned, the address is shown as No.5, 4th Floor, Chennai-600 001; this address is incomplete in material particulars. The application is not supported by an affidavit. The petition has been signed on behalf of the Forum by Mr.P.Pugalenthi. If this Tribunal is to entertain petitions of this nature, the proceedings will be unduly and unjustifiably protracted. Furthermore, none of the submissions made by Mr.Radhakrishnan travel beyond the arguments addressed by Mr.Vaiko. In order to avoid prolixity, the Tribunal thinks it sufficient to refer and rely on the previous orders passed on 25.9.2010.

9. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Jafar v. Union of India reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 1  and Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. C.C.E reported in 1995 (1) SCC 451 and submitted that when a declaration is made by the Central Government by issuing notification, such notification has to be specify the grounds on which declaration is made.   Learned counsel further submitted that it is necessary for the Tribunal to ascertain the credibility of conflicting evidence relating to the points in controversy, and the Tribunal must record its satisfaction after hearing the persons concerned.
10. There is no dispute with regard to the decisions highlighted by the learned counsel. The Tribunal was fully conscious of the legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Jamat-E-Islami Hind v. Union of India reported in 11995 (1) SCC 428 wherein it is held that in order to satisfy the minimum requirements of a proper adjudication, it is necessary that the Tribunal should have the means to ascertain the credibility of conflicting evidence relating to the points in controversy.
11. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Tribunal has given full opportunity to the persons aggrieved and heard the parties, and therefore, in our view, the petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal therefore needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.











Sm/pv

Copy to:

1. The Ministry of Home Affairs,
    rep. by Home Secretary,
    New Delhi  110 001.

2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal,
    Delhi High Court Building,
    Sher Shah Road, New Delhi,
    rep. by its
    Registrar