1 wp2010-10+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2101 OF 2010 Gauri Anand Gokhale & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. The Appropriate Authority & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Ms.Aasifa Khan i/b. Ashok J.Patil for the petitioners. Mr. Abhay Ahuja with Ms. Suchita Kamble for respondent Nos.1 & 2. WRIT PETITION NO.1811 OF 2010 Satish Balan & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Porus Kaka with Ms. Vasanti B. Patel for the petitioners. Mr. Abhay Ahuja with Ms. Suchita Kamble for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Ms.Aasifa Khan i/b. Ashok J.Patil for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2011 2 wp2010-10+1 P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed basically to challenge the order passed by the Appropriate Authority on 3/2/2010 under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first contention of the petitioners is that the order dated 3/2/2010 has been passed without giving hearing to the petitioners. Secondly, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the directions given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation on 10/8/2009 in Writ Petition No.1016 of 1995. It is also contended that assuming that the order is valid, then in view of the non compliance of the provisions contained in Section 269UG of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order stands abrogated and the property stands re-vested in the petitioners. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that inadvertently, the notice has been sent to the address of the original transferee (since deceased) and not to the legal heirs. In these circumstances, in our opinion, since the impugned order has been 3 wp2010-10+1 passed without issuing proper notice to the petitioners, the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 3/2/2010 is quashed and set aside and the Appropriate Authority is directed to pass fresh order after giving personal hearing to the petitioners and in accordance with the directions given by this Court on 10/8/2009 in Writ Petition No.1016 of 1995. 4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 5. All contentions are kept open. 6. Mr.Ahuja, on instructions from Mr. Madhav Deshmukh, ACIT, the Appropriate Authority, who is present in the Court states that the fresh order would be passed within a period of 6 weeks from today. Statement is accepted. (MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)