Judgment :- JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J. The petitioner is Shri. T. A. Abdul Nazar Madhani, chairman of the Islamic Seva Sangh (hereinafter called the 'ISS'). The Writ Petition is filed questioning the notification, Ext. P2, issued by the Central Government dated 10-12-1992 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the "Act"), and also the further notification Ext. P4 dated 12-12-1992 issued by the State of Kerala delegating its powers to the all District Collector, Commissioner of Police, Superintendents of Police and District Magistrate under Section 19 of the Act to take action under Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act. During the course of the arguments, however, the attack was confined to Ext. P2 notification issued by the Union of India, and no arguments were advanced in regard to Ext. P4 notification. 2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the ISS. He also claims to be the Principal of the Anvarul Islam Charitable Society at Sasthancotta. According to him, the ISS is purely a religious organisation formed in November, 1990 for the religious, cultural, educational and spiritual advancement of Muslims. A true copy of the constitution of the ISS is marked as Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 requires the ISS to adopt constructive and peaceful method and abjure violence, communal hatred, class struggle, disharmony, discord and anarchy. It is stated that the ISS had utmost faith in the sovereignity and integrity of India and in public order and morality and in the fundamental rights to minority. The said Anvarul Islam Charitable Society is said to have been registered on 4-8-1988 under the Travancore-Cochin (Literary, Scientific and Charitable) Societies Registration Act, 1955, and is said to be a public trust established in 1987. Various details with regard to the alleged activities of the above said Society and conducting orphanage and Arts and Arabic Colleges are mentioned in the writ petition. While so, the Government of India had issued Ext. P2 notification on 10-12-1992 banning the organisation under section 3(1) of the Act. The Government of India also delegated in exercise of its powers under Section 19 various powers to the State of Kerala for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Kollam, issued a further notification dated 13-12-1992 under section 8 of the Act. The Government of India also delegated in exercise of its powers under Section 19 various powers to the State of Kerala for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Kollam, issued a further notification dated 13-12-1992 under section 8 of the Act. So far as the notification under section 8 is concerned, the same is not questioned in the Writ Petition. That was questioned by the petitioner's father in O.P. No. 17121 of 1992, which Writ Petition is dismissed today by us by a separate judgment. So far as this Writ Petitioner filed by the Chairman of the ISS is concerned, arguments have been confined to the attack on Ext. P2 notification issued by the Government of India on 10-12-1992. The petitioner has impleaded the State of Kerala as the first respondent, Union of India as the second respondent, Sri. Rajesh Divan, District Suprintendent of Police, Quilon, as the third respondent, Sri. C. Subramanyam, Director General of Police, Trivandrum, as the fourth respondent, and Sri. T. V. Madhusoodanan, Inspector General of Police, Trivandrum, as the fifth respondent. The petitioner has made personal allegations against respondents 3 to 5. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri. Rajesh Divan, the third respondent, on his own behalf, and on behalf of the fourth respondent. In the counter affidavit, various allegations of the petitioner have been denied, and it is contended that the ISS is squarely a sectarian communal organisation which has been only promoting religious disharmony and feelings of enmity, hatred, and ill-will between different communities in India, especially between the Hindus and Muslims. It is stated that with a short span of time, the petitioner, Sri. Abdul Nazar Madani has criminal record to his credit. 12 crimes have been registered for seditious activities, one crime under section 307, IPC one under the Explosives Act and one for inciting arson. Thus there are 15 crimes registered against the petitioner. During the course of arguments it was submitted that 19 crimes have been registered against him between 20-3-1992 and 10-7-1992. It is further submitted before us that one more crime was registered on 13-12-1992 under the Arms and Explosives Act. Among the earlier 19 FIRs, it is admitted that 16 FIRs, relate to the speeches allegedly delivered by the petitioner for inciting religious groups to take law into their hands. It is further submitted before us that one more crime was registered on 13-12-1992 under the Arms and Explosives Act. Among the earlier 19 FIRs, it is admitted that 16 FIRs, relate to the speeches allegedly delivered by the petitioner for inciting religious groups to take law into their hands. Details of the various crimes are set out in the counter-affidavit. It is further submitted that as a base for conspiracy and illegal activities the ISS is utilising the spacious plot which is having an extent of more than 2 acres with a building said to be owned by the Anwarul Islam Charitable Society. But that society is only existing on paper. The whole area of 2 acres has been converted into a well protected fortress with huge brick walls having a height of 15 ft. with further provision for the installation of barbed wires for fencing. According to the police, the entire area has been utilised for clandestine and nefarious activities of the ISS. Huge monetary contributions from outside the country have been obtained for allegedly projecting the rights of the Muslims against the Hindus. Money is being obtained on ground that Yatheem Khana has been built to look after the welfare of the children born from the rape incidents committed by the Hindus on the Muslim sisters. According to the respondents, Madraassa, said to be established by the petitioner for education, is only a cover used for illegal and anti-social activities. Periodical press conferences, recording of cassettes and other modes of publication and propagation were being conducted in the spacious structure enclosed by huge compound walls. It is stated that recruitment of youngsters is for both armed and unarmed training which is being done under the supervision of a former CRPF Officer. Huge collection of arms and ammunition with high explosives capacity had been collected and kept in the area for ready use by highly trained personnel guards called 'black cats'. During the course of search operations, the police have detected the ISS volunteers uniforms metal detectors, arms and gun powder for the manufacture of bombs and various other arms within the premises above mentioned. The police have also unearthed huge collections of explosives, and discarded containers with the smell of explosives were also found in the premises. During the course of search operations, the police have detected the ISS volunteers uniforms metal detectors, arms and gun powder for the manufacture of bombs and various other arms within the premises above mentioned. The police have also unearthed huge collections of explosives, and discarded containers with the smell of explosives were also found in the premises. After 10-12-1992, certain correspondence and other things had been burnt and partially burnt letters and other documents were retrieved from the ashes. This burning of correspondence was done by the petitioner to cover up his illegal activities, it is stated. According to the respondents, partially burnt bill books recovered from the place showed that even after the ban, the writ petitioner was collecting cheques and drafts addressed to the ISS at the above said address. One letter recovered in tact shows that the petitioner was fervently on the look-out of a convenient place-hideout to be purchased for continuing his subversive activities, in the Kerala Tamil Nadu border. The call of the petitioner to the members of the Association is that they should lay down their lives for the cause of the ISS. It is stated that the petitioner was holding to ransom even the owners of the adjacent properties who were successfully pressurised to part with the lands at throw away prices. The police contended that not even a single item said to belong to the society and that the society is only on paper, and that the ISS is unlawfully using the premises for its unlawful activities. The police have made a list of items of properties recovered under section 8 of the Act as one used for the purpose of unlawful activities. Since explosives were recovered with a further chance of detection of more explosives concealed in the premises, in public interest, it is not at all safe for the use of anybody for any purpose whatsoever. No prayer for possession to the petitioner can be granted. Even after the ban on 10-12-1992, the meetings of the so-called High Power Committee have been convened, and Crime No. 278 of 1992 was registered at Vallarada Police Station on 12-12-1992. The police have seized hundred numbers of gelatine sticks and sixteen numbers of electric detonators from the tourist car owned by one Abdul Rahiman, and this, it is stated, was arranged by one Abdul Jabar another leader of the ISS. The police have seized hundred numbers of gelatine sticks and sixteen numbers of electric detonators from the tourist car owned by one Abdul Rahiman, and this, it is stated, was arranged by one Abdul Jabar another leader of the ISS. The said Jabar is a member of the security Guard of the ISS. It is stated that the petitioner has been evading arrest, and this Hon'ble Court may direct the petitioner's personal presence to show his bona fides. It is also stated that the allegations against respondents 2 to 5 are without any basis, incorrect and mala fide. It is stated that respondents 3, 4 and 5 have no axe to grind in the matter, and that they are doing their official duties bona fidely. Various other facts are mentioned to say that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that 43 cases have been registered against the ISS before the ban and now 20 cases have been registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that notification dated 10-12-1992, Ext. P2, is illegal inasmuch as the ISS has been dissolved on 10-12-1992 itself by the petitioner, and that there is no material for the applicability of Section 15 of the Act. It is also contended that the notification could not have been brought into immediate effect under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act, inasmuch as no separate reasons were recorded in the said notification under the said proviso for bringing the notification into immediate effect. He also contended that there is non exus between the various activities of the ISS which are said to have taken place before 10-12-1992 and the issuance of the notification on 10-12-1992. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sealing of the premises by the police authorities was wholly unauthorised. It was argued that the premises are for the residence of the petitioner, and that the allegations against the petitioner should not be taken to be proved, till they are established. It was finally contended that a blanket order that the petitioner or the members of the ISS should not be arrested should be granted. 5. The learned Addl. It was argued that the premises are for the residence of the petitioner, and that the allegations against the petitioner should not be taken to be proved, till they are established. It was finally contended that a blanket order that the petitioner or the members of the ISS should not be arrested should be granted. 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General II, however, contended that the notification under section 3(1) was valid, and that separate reasons under section 3(3) need not be stated in the notification itself, that in view of Section 15, the alleged dissolution of the ISS is of no effect, and that there was adequate nexus between the earlier activities of the ISS and the notification dated 10-12-1992. The sealing of the premises was incidental and necessary for preventing the further activities and it cannot be said that the ISS was lawfully residing in the three premises. There is no question of giving any benefit of doubt under the Crl. jurisprudence, inasmuch as the District Court under Section 8 of the Act functions as a civil court. The Tribunal under sections 4 and 5 is not a criminal court. It is also contended that no blanket order for not arresting the petitioner or the members of the ISS can be granted. The allegations of mala fides against the police officers are wholly unwarranted. 6. The learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel has contended that there is no round for quashing the notification dated 10-12-1992 issued by the Central Government. He has also relied on an order passed on 22-12-1992 in C.M.P. No. 30464/92 in CMP 30248/92 in OP 16849/92, which was a Writ Petition filed by an another organisation called 'Jamaat-E. Islami Hind', which was also declared to be an unlawful organisation on 10-12-1992. It is pointed out that a similar notification has been upheld on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act for bringing the notification into immediate effect need not be mentioned in the notification issued under Section 3(1) and that it was sufficient if the said reasons are contained or recorded in the file. 7. The following questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether the bringing into immediate effect, Ext. 7. The following questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether the bringing into immediate effect, Ext. P2 notification dated 10-12-1992, issued under section 3(1) of the Act is invalid on the ground that no reasons are stated in the notification as to why the ban should come into effect immediately ? (2) Whether there is any reasonable nexus between the activities of the ISS and 10-12-1992, the date on which Ext. P2 notification was issued banning the organisation ? (3) Whether there is effective dissolution of the ISS so as not to attract Section 15 of the Act ? (4) Whether the sealing of the premises by the police authorities as per the further notification dated 13-12-1992 issued by the District Magistrate, Kollam, is illegal ? (5) Whether the petitioner can be said to be a resident entitled to re-delivery of the property under section 8 of the Act ? (6) Whether the petitioner can claim a blanket order on the ground that the contentions made against him have to be ignored till they are actually proved ? 8. Point No. 1 : For the purpose of appreciating this point, it is necessary to refer to sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 3, which read as follows : "3. Declaration of an association as unlawful :- (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that any association is, or has become, an unlawful association, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful. (2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it issued and such other particulars as the Central Government may consider necessary : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require the Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. (3) No such notification shall have effect until the Tribunal has, by an order made under section 4, confirmed the declaration made therein and the order is published in the Official Gazette. Provided that if the Central Government is of opinion that circumstances exist which render it necessary for that Government to declare an association to be unlawful with immediate effect it may, for reasons to be stated in writing, direct that the notification shall, subject to any order that may be made under Section 4, have effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. ................" It is necessary to refer to Ext. P2 notification dated 10-12-1992, issued by the Central Government : "S.O. 899(E) : Whereas Shri I.C.S. Abdul Nazar Madani, Chairman of the Islamic Sevak Sangh (hereinafter referred to as ISS) had been giving inflamatory speeches with a view to promoting, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different communities. And whereas Shri. I.C.S. Abdul Nazar Madani, in a public meeting at Poonthura, District Trivandrum on the 30th June, 1992, has stated that that thousands of Muslims were killed and tortured in Kashmir and authorities were not taking effective steps and Muslims women being raped by Hindus with the support of authorities. And whereas Shri I.C.S. Abdul Nazar Madani, in a recorded speech for public circulation, has stated that a Muslim cannot live as a Muslim in this country and Muslim brothers should be prepared to get organised as also question the right of the people to hoist national flag in Kashmir. And whereas Shri I.C.S. Abdul Nazar Madani, in a recorded speech for public circulation, has stated that a Muslim cannot live as a Muslim in this country and Muslim brothers should be prepared to get organised as also question the right of the people to hoist national flag in Kashmir. And whereas the following criminal cases have been registered against Shri I.C.S. Abdul Nazar Madani, under section 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) : (a) Karungappally PS (District Kollam) Case No. 109/92 dated 20th March, 1992 under section 153A : (b) Kundara PS (District Kollam) Case No. 117/92 dated 28th March, 1992 under section 153A; (c) Kasba PS (District Calicut) Case No. 103/92 dated 21st May, 1992 under section 153B : And whereas the ISS has been encouraging and aiding its followers to undertake unlawful activities within the meaning of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967); And whereas for all or any of the grounds set out in the preceding paragraphs as also on the basis of other facts and materials in its possession which the Central Government considers to be against the public interest to disclose, the Central Government is of the opinion that the ISS is an unlawful association : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) the Central Government hereby declares the 'Islamic Sevak Sangh' to be an unlawful association, and directs, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3), of that Section, that this notification shall, subject to any order that may be made under section 4 of the said Act, have effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette." It will be noticed from the preamble of the Act that the Act is intended to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(f) defines 'unlawful activity', while Section 2(g) defines 'unlawful association'. Section 3(1) permits the Central Government to declare any association as unlawful association, provided that the grounds for such declaration must be specified in the said notification as required by Section 3(2). Section 3(3) states that the notification shall come into effect unless confirmed by the Tribunal under S. 4, except in cases where the Central Govt. Section 3(1) permits the Central Government to declare any association as unlawful association, provided that the grounds for such declaration must be specified in the said notification as required by Section 3(2). Section 3(3) states that the notification shall come into effect unless confirmed by the Tribunal under S. 4, except in cases where the Central Govt. is of opinion that 'for reasons to be stated in writing' the Central Government considers that the declaration must come into effect immediately. Section 4 deals with reference to Tribunal, and Section 5 deals with the procedure before it. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Tribunals has since been constituted at New Delhi. It has been reported in the press that the said tribunal has issued notices to the various banned organisations, including the ISS, in the last few days. 10. But the point is whether the bringing into effect to Ext. P. 2 notification from the date of its publication, namely, 10-12-1992, is invalid. There are two answers to this point. 10A. The first one is that notification Ext. P. 2 dated 10-12-1992 contains in its preamble, namely paragraphs 1 to 6, various reasons as to why the Government is of opinion under section 3(1) that the ISS is an unlawful organisation. Then in the last paragraph comes the declaration under section 3(1) declaring the ISS as unlawful association. Thereafter the later part of the last paragraph deals with the bringing into effect of the said declaration with immediate effect under section 3(3). 11. In our view, the last paragraph of the notification when it starts with the words 'now, therefore' the said words are intended not only to govern the exercise of powers under section 3(1), but also the exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act bringing the declaration into immediate effect. As noticed above, in paragraphs 1 to 6, the Central Government had given various reasons as to why it was declaring the ISS as an unlawful association under section 3(1), and in our considered view, the same reasons in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the notification were considered by the Central Government to be sufficient for the purpose of the proviso to Section 3(3). In our opinion, the words 'now, therefore', in the last paragraph of the notification dated 10-12-1992, and the words 'and directs' in the said paragraph have to be read closely and should be given their due importance. If the Central Government considers paragraphs 1 to 6 as indicating the reasons as to why the notification should be brought into immediate effect, it is not, in our opinion, necessary for the Central Government to repeat paragraphs 1 to 6 after the words 'and directs' and before the words 'in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3)'. When this aspect of the matter was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had virtually no answer. 12. If the Central Government states that certain activities of an association are unlawful and the association should be declared as such, not from a future date, when the Tribunal would confirm such a declaration, but with immediate effect, it may be, in certain circumstances, necessary for the Central Government to mention the reasons for the declaration under section 3(1) separately, and the reasons for bringing into effect the notification immediately, again separately. Obviously such a situation may arise if both sets of reasons are different. But where both sets of reasons either wholly or partly overlap, it may not be necessary for the Central Government to repeat in the notification issued under section 3(1) the reasons for bringing the notification into immediate effect once again when such reasons have already been set out in the grounds for the issuance of the notification under section 3(2). In such a latter situation, when the Central Government uses the words 'now therefore' referring to the reasons, and exercises powers under Sections 3(1) and 3(3), such a notification cannot be challenged on the ground that no reasons have been given separately under the proviso the Section 3(3) for bringing the notification into immediate effect. This is one first reason. 13. We shall advert to the second reason as to why the bringing into Ext. P. 2 with immediate effect is not bad. In this context we adopt the reasons given by the learned Judges Varghese Kalliath, and Sreedharan, JJ. in their order on C.M.P. No. 30464 of 1992 in C.M.P. No. 30248 of 1992 in O.P. No. 16849 of 1992 dated 22-12-1992. That was Writ Petition filed by Jamaat-E-Islami Hind. P. 2 with immediate effect is not bad. In this context we adopt the reasons given by the learned Judges Varghese Kalliath, and Sreedharan, JJ. in their order on C.M.P. No. 30464 of 1992 in C.M.P. No. 30248 of 1992 in O.P. No. 16849 of 1992 dated 22-12-1992. That was Writ Petition filed by Jamaat-E-Islami Hind. The learned Judges referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 555 : (1985) 4 SCC 252, wherein in the context of second proviso (b) to Article 311(2) the Supreme Court observed as follows : "....... It is however not necessary that the reason should find a place in the final order but it would be advisable to record it in the final order in order to a void an allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated." In the present case, it is not the contention of the petitioner that no reasons are stated in the departmental file as to why the notification, Ext. P. 2, should be brought into immediate effect. But the contention is that it was necessary that the reasons should be stated in the notification itself. In view of our first reason given earlier, it is not necessary. Even otherwise, the fact that such reasons are stated in the file is not in dispute. Therefore there can be no infirmity in bringing the notification, Ext. P. 2, with immediate effect. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold Point No. 1 against the petitioner. 14. Point No. 2 :- It is contended that there is no reasonable nexus between the notification dated 10-12-1992 and the earlier acts alleged against the petitioner and his organisation. It is contended that all the 19 FIRs that were registered against the petitioner were between 20-3-1992 and 10-7-1992, and only one FIR was registered subsequent to 10-12-1992, that is on 13-12-1992 under the Arms and Explosives Act. Out of the FIRs registered between March and July 1992, 16 refer to the alleged fiery inflammatory speeches given by the petitioner. 15. In our view, having regard to the reasons mentioned in the preamble to Ext. Out of the FIRs registered between March and July 1992, 16 refer to the alleged fiery inflammatory speeches given by the petitioner. 15. In our view, having regard to the reasons mentioned in the preamble to Ext. P. 2 notification dated 10-12-1992 issued under Section 3(1), it cannot, prima facie, be said that there is no reasonable nexus between the earlier acts of the petitioner and the members of the ISS and notification dated 10-12-1992. The Ayodya incident having taken place on 6-12-1992, the Union of India thought that the above said speeches and the pendency of the FIRs, and the petitioner not allowing himself to be arrested, were good grounds for taking action under section 3(1). We do not, therefore, think that there is any substance in the contention that there is no reasonable nexus between the facts stated in Ext. P. 1 and the declaration made under section 3(1). The counter affidavit of the respondents also refers to the various activities of the petitioner not only upto the date of notification, but also subsequent to the notification on 10-12-1992. In any event, the sufficiency of the grounds will have to be taken up before the tribunal constituted under section 4 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, this point is held against the petitioner. 16. Point No. 3 :- The contention is that the petitioner has dissolved the ISS on 10-12-1992 itself and Section 15 of the Act cannot apply. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows : "15. Continuance of association. - An association shall not be deemed to have ceased to exist by reason only of any formal act of its dissolution or change of name but shall be deemed to continue so long as any actual combination for the purposes of such association continues between any members thereof." In our view, therefore, mere declaration of the petitioner that the association is dissolved with effect from 10-12-1992 cannot have any effect. The question whether the latter part of Section 15 is attracted and whether there is any combination between any members of the association for the purposes of such association is a matter to be taken up before the tribunal under section 4 or before the District Court under section 8. The question whether the latter part of Section 15 is attracted and whether there is any combination between any members of the association for the purposes of such association is a matter to be taken up before the tribunal under section 4 or before the District Court under section 8. Prima facie we are satisfied that in view of the facts stated in the counter affidavit, the latter part of Section 15 is attracted and the mere declaration by the petitioner that the ISS is dissolved cannot affect the continuance of the notification issued under section 3(1) or the notification issued under section 8. Point No. 3 is accordingly decided against the petitioner. 17. Point No. 4 :- This refers to the question of sealing of the premises. We may here point out that the sealing of the premises mentioned as items 3, 4 and 5 of the notification of the District Magistrate dated 13-12-1992 has been assailed by the petitioner's father in the Writ Petition O.P. No. 17121 of 1992, which is dismissed by us today by separate judgment. In that case we pointed out that the petitioner therein has not chosen to ask for the quashing of the notification dated 13-12-1992, nor has he impleaded the District Magistrate. The position is identical to the present case. The District Magistrate who issued the notification dated 13-12-1992 has not been impleaded, nor the said notification has been sought to be quashed. Therefore, any action pursuant to the said notification of the District Magistrate including the sealing of the three premises cannot be raised in the Writ Petition. Even otherwise, as stated in our judgment in O.P. No. 17121 of 1992, which is dismissed by us today, it will be for the District Court to consider under Section 8(8) whether for the purpose of making its order under Sections 8(3) and 8(4) effective, it is necessary to seal the premises under powers incidental to the main power. It is well-settled that for the purpose of ensuring that certain orders already passed being effective, and certain orders to be passed in future not to become ineffective, the authorities may have incidental powers to do certain things. Whether such powers to seal the premises are incidental to the main power under section 8(3) and (4) will be a matter for the District Court to decide. Whether such powers to seal the premises are incidental to the main power under section 8(3) and (4) will be a matter for the District Court to decide. In this context it is also necessary to point out that the allegations in the counter affidavit are that large quantities of arms and ammunition have been recovered from the premises subsequent to 10-12-1992, that the premises are being used by the ISS for unlawful activities, that certain documents have been partly destroyed, and that there is likelihood of the premises being used for such purposes. In paragraph 5 of the counter it is stated : "...... Since explosives were recovered with a further chance of detection of more explosives concealed in the premises, in public interest, it is not at all safe for the use of anybody for any purpose whatsoever ..............." In other words, the police expect to unearth some more explosives from the premises. Therefore, it would not be safe for any body to use the premises. Therefore, prima facie the sealing of the premises is justified, and Point No. 4 is held against the petitioner. 18. Point No. 5 :- The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the premises on the ground that he was residing in the premises prior to the notification. Section 8(4) says : "The District Magistrate may, thereupon, make an order that no person who at the date of the notification was not a resident in the notified place shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, enter, or be on or in, the notified place. Therefore the District Magistrate has the power to make an order that no person who on the date of the notification was not a resident in the notified place shall without the permission of the District Magistrate enter or be on or in the notified place. A question would arise as to whether the petitioner or his father was a resident. The Court may perhaps have to consider the meaning of the word 'resident', and whether it means lawful residence or whether even unlawful occupation would also come within Section 8(4). All questions of law and fact in this behalf have to be considered by the District Court under section 8(8). Therefore this question cannot be raised in this O.P. Point No. 5 is decided accordingly". 19. All questions of law and fact in this behalf have to be considered by the District Court under section 8(8). Therefore this question cannot be raised in this O.P. Point No. 5 is decided accordingly". 19. Point No. 6 :- The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to a blanket order that he or members of the ISS should not be arrested by the police. We may here point out that the petitioner has himself filed various applications for anticipatory bail as Crl. M.C. Nos. 11 to 26 and 28 to 30 of 1993. These several applications are filed in view of the fact that there are several crimes registered against the petitioner. The said applications have since been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by orders dated 15-1-1993. In any event there is no question of this Court granting anticipatory bail orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are enough provisions in the Cr.P.C. and those can be availed of by the petitioner or the members of the ISS, if such remedies are not already availed of. 20. So far as the allegations against the three police officers impleaded in their personal capacity are concerned, there is no material to say that anyone of their actions is mala fide or not bona fide. There is only a bare allegation without material. We therefore reject the contention. 21. Before parting with the case, we have to refer to the memo filed by the petitioner's counsel on 14-1-1993 for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with leave to file a Writ Petition for approaching the Court again or to pursue alternative remedies. The first of these reliefs alone was pressed by counsel on 14-1-1993. We may state that the case was almost fully heard for nearly three hours on 13-1-1993 and the Court had expressed its tentative views on the various points arising in the case and it was at that stage that the memo was filed on 14-1-1993 as above stated. No reasons have been given in the memo. We told counsel that while we would permit withdrawal, we would not, at that stage, permit a fresh writ petition on same allegations or for same reliefs. No reasons have been given in the memo. We told counsel that while we would permit withdrawal, we would not, at that stage, permit a fresh writ petition on same allegations or for same reliefs. We are recording this fact because it has of late become common for counsel to argue cases at length and seek withdrawal with leave to come back to Court again. We feel that the Court should not ordinarily grant such a request. After all, the courts' time is precious and parties cannot be allowed absolute freedom to withdraw a case with leave to come back again, unless good reasons are given for such a request. No such good reasons are given. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails, and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.