K.M.Yusuf, J. - (1.) This matter is having the third round in the Calcutta High Court. In the second round on 24th June, 1988 in CO. No. 6818(W) of 1984 I set aside and quashed the Memo dated 14th February, 1984 along with the certificate under section 12 of the Enemy Property Act, 1969 issued by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property in Calcutta and allowed the writ application. I, however, gave liberty to the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce, to have the matter heard in accordance with section 6 of the said Act by a high ranking officer not below the rank of the Joint Secretary or equivalent thereto and sitting or sittings should take place at New Delhi after giving full opportunity of producing evidence and documents to the petitioners and the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property in Calcutta and hearing the parties on the basis of such evidence and documents in the light of the observations made in the Judgment. I further ordered that the officer concerned should be free to come to his findings in accordance with law and should pass a reasoned order.
(2.) The first writ petition being C.R. No. 3679(W) of 1979 was ultimately discharged (AIR 1982 Cal. 542). The appeal was preferred being F.M.A.T. No. 1853 of 1982 and was allowed in part by a Division Bench consisting of M. M. Dutt and G. N. Ray, JJ. The Appeal Court held as follows :- "In our opinion, before any step for taking possession of the premises in question are taken by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property it must be decided by him whether property is an enemy property or not, and such decision shall be made after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property cannot proceed on the basis of a pre-conceived notion or assumption, but he has to decide on evidence or materials that will be made available to him. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property cannot take possession of the premises in question without deciding the plea of the appellants that their vendor was not a Pakistani national and, consequently, the property was not and is not an enemy property"
(3.) In accordance with the Appeal Court's direction the Assistant Custodian disposed of the representation of the appellants and passed an order dated 14th February, 1984 which was quashed by me in the second writ petition as stated hereinbefore.;