JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.W. Puranik J. - On 21st May 1991, the petitioner was found in possession of a German make revolver which was unauthorised and, therefore, he was charge-sheeted by Bhandup Police Station for offences under sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/-. However, the petitioner was unable to furnish Surety to that extent. A couple of weeks thereafter, the Bhandup Police Station also charge-sheeted the petitioner for offence under section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, on the ground of having been found in possession of unauthorized arms in a notified area. In view of the additional charge, the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the designated Court under TADA Act. The petitioner has approached this Court by this Petition and Rule was issued on 16th August 1991 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application before the designated Court for grant of bail and with direction to the designated Court to dispose of the same within 3 weeks from the date of bail application. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred application for bail, but for reasons alleged by the petitioner, the said application was not disposed of within 3 weeks but after about 9 weeks on 19th November 1991. The designated Court allowed the application for bail and granted him release on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- surety amount. 2. Today, the Petition has come up for final hearing. Shri Subhash Jha appears for the petitioner and Shri R.F. Lambay, A.P.P. appears for the State. 3. It is apparent that the petitioner, while seeking bail, had not applied under section 18 of TADA Act for transfer of his case to the regular Court on his submission that the provisions of section 5 of TADA Act are not applicable to the facts of his case. 4. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M.L. Pendse and A.D.Mane, JJ.) by judgment dated 3rd September 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75 of 1991 (Narendra Govind Mangela v. The Inspector of Police, Virar Police Station, and another1 has already given guidelines how section 5 of TADA Act is made applicable to cases under TADA Act is made applicable to cases under TADA Act. The learned Judges have observed that it is only when the basic ingredients of section 5 of TADA Act are satisfied, namely, possession of an unauthorized fire-arm in a notified area, and in addition it must be prima facie established by the prosecution that such possession by the accused has direct nexus with terrorist and disruptive activities, that the provisions of TADA Act are applicable to a particular case. They have also further observed that the designated Court has jurisdiction to deal with this aspect of the matter by applying its mind to the facts of each case and decide whether the provisions of TADA Act are applicable or whether the matter should be forwarded to the regular Court for trial. 5. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has not preferred any application under section 18 of TADA Act so far. The language of section 18 of TADA Act so far. The language of section 18 does not require any obligation for the party concerned to make application under section 18. The designated Court can also suo motu act under section 18 of TADA Act. 6. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the designated Court under section 18 of TADA Act and further direct the designated Court to dispose of such application, if made, within three weeks thereafter. Rule is discharged. 1. Cri. Writ Petition No. 75 of 1991: decided on 3.9.1991. (Bom H.C.DB).