Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima dismissed a writ petition challenging the attachment of immovable property belonging to two organisations allegedly linked to the banned Popular Front of India. The District Collector had ordered the attachment of the premises, which was subsequently confirmed by the Principal District Judge. The petitioners contended they were not associated with PFI, however, the court found that PFI had conducted activities through the petitioner's premises and that both organisations shared identical contact details on their pamphlets, bringing the petitioners within the scope of the central government's notification declaring PFI and its affiliates as unlawful associations.

The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Theni District, which confirmed the order of the District Collector cum District Magistrate dated 30.09.2022 under Sections 7 and 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, attaching the petitioners’ immovable property.

Also Read: Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Cannot Stall CIRP Under IBC; Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Abeyance Order

The first petitioner is a registered trust, and the second petitioner is an institution established by it. The National Investigation Agency registered an FIR for offences under Sections 120-B, 153A, 153AA IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38 and 39 of the UAPA against alleged office bearers and members of the Popular Front of India. It was alleged that the accused engaged in criminal conspiracy and unlawful activities and used the petitioners’ premises. A Central Government notification dated 27.09.2022 declared PFI and its associates unlawful. The District Magistrate thereafter attached the petitioners’ premises.

The petitioners contended that they were not declared unlawful and that the attachment was without jurisdiction. The respondents maintained that the petitioners were affiliates of PFI and that the action was within statutory powers.

On the question of whether the petitioners fell within the scope of the ban notification, the court observed that the founders of PFI were members of the petitioners' association, and that various organisations started by them in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka later merged to function under the name PFI. On perusal of witness statements, the court recorded that "PFI, through the institution of the second petitioner in Theni District, deputed its cadres to conduct Dawa work in Thanjavur District at several places. They were also involved in a murder case. Therefore, these statements clearly show that the petitioners are also associates of PFI and are affiliated with it. Further, on perusal of the pamphlets of the petitioners and PFI, it is revealed that both the pamphlets have the same contact number. Hence, the notification issued by the first respondent covers the petitioners as an unlawful association."

On the nature of the attachment order passed under Section 8 of the UAPA, the court observed that "an attachment is nothing but prohibiting the petitioners from using the premises." It further recorded that the fourth respondent's order directed that "no person who at the date of the notification was not a resident in the notified place shall, without the permission of the fourth respondent, occupy or use the premises." The court noted that the property was also directed not to be alienated without prior permission, and concluded that "the entire order is of a prohibitory nature and falls within the purview of Section 8 of the U.A.P.A."

On the distinction between orders under Section 8 and Section 25 of the UAPA, the court observed that "Section 8 of the U.A.P.A deals with the prohibition of the premises by the unlawful association, whereas Section 25 of the U.A.P.A deals with the forfeiture of the proceeds of the premises which are intended to be used for terrorism." The court also noted that the order passed under Section 25 was separately challenged by way of appeal and remained pending adjudication.

The court ultimately stated that it found "no infirmity or illegality in the order passed" by the Principal District Judge as well as in the order passed by the District Collector.

Also Read: Generating Tatkal Tickets For Out-Of-Turn Passengers Without Collecting Fare Amounts To Misconduct Under Railway Service Conduct Rules: Madras High Court

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr.C.M.Arumugam

For the Respondents: Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Standing Counsel

Case Title: The Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust & Anr. v. Government of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P(Crl)MD.No.1796 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima