ORDER : 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Uphaar cinema premises should be released in favour of the owner-appellant herein. 2. Mr. Manu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the CBI has not during the course of investigation seized the premises in dispute nor has any seizure memo been placed on record either before the trial court or the first Appellate Court or even before this court. He points out that although the premises should have been released no sooner the trial concluded, the trial court did not pass a formal order on the subject because of some inadvertence. When the matter was taken up before the High Court, an application for release was no doubt made and argued but since the appeal was transferred to another Hon'ble Judge, orders on the application were not pronounced. An application filed before the High court after the disposal of the appeal was, however, dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the matter had travelled to the Supreme Court and the High Court had become functus officio. 3. It is in above backdrop that Mr. Sharma prayed for a direction for release of the cinema for according to him there was neither a valid and lawful seizure of the premises nor was the property in question liable to be seized or taken over by the CBI. Even so, the CBI had according to Mr. Sharma prevented the owners from entering the premises and posted guards to prevent ingress and egress from the same. 4. Ms. Aparjita, learned counsel appearing for the CBI on the other hand submitted on instructions of the S.P., CBI who is present in court that she would require time to verify whether the premises had been seized and if so, the provision under which such seizure was effected. She further states that since a case against Shri Amod Kanth, the then licensing authority is still pending before the Magistrate, the release of the premises in favour of the owner may have to await the conclusion of the said proceedings. 5. Ms. Aparjita, however, concedes that in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court, when the CBI conducted further investigation, it had found no case made out against Amod Kanth and submitted a closure report to the Magistrate. 5. Ms. Aparjita, however, concedes that in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court, when the CBI conducted further investigation, it had found no case made out against Amod Kanth and submitted a closure report to the Magistrate. That report it appears had been turned down by the Magistrate who has taken cognizance on a protest petition filed before him by the Victims' Association. 6. In the circumstances set out above we deem it fit to direct the CBI to file an affidavit indicating: 6.1 whether or not the premises were seized and if so, when by whom and for what purpose. 6.2 IF = 6.2. If seizure was indeed effected, the provision under which the same was done. 6.3 WH = 6.3. Whether the premises is presently held by the CBI and if so, under whose orders and directions. A copy of any such direction shall also be placed on record along with the affidavit. 7. We had by our order dated 17.04.2013[*] directed issue of notice to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union of India. No one, however, appears for the said two parties today. We direct fresh notice to be served upon the Chief Secretary of NCT, Delhi and the Home Secretary, Government of India. 1. SUS = Sushil Ansal v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2010 order dated 17.04.2013 (SC), wherein is was directed : "1. Arguments concluded. Judgement reserved in all matters, except Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2010. Ten days, time is granted to the appellants to file written submissions and one week to CBI and complainants, thereafter. Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2010 NOT = 2. Notice shall also issue in this appeal to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs), to enable them to file report as the steps taken by them, pursuant to the judgement delivered by this Court on 13.10.2011 in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., (2011) 14 SCC 481 : 2013 (1) SCC (Civ.) 897 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri.) 555 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 305 " AIR 2012 SC 100 . Post the matter on 25.04.2013, before the same Bench. 8. Post the matter on 25.04.2013, before the same Bench. 8. Notices shall also be served upon the Solicitor General for India and the Standing counsel/panel counsel, if any, for NCT, Delhi who shall take instructions as to whether any steps have been taken by the two Governments towards implementation of the directions issued by this court in Civil Appeal No. 6748 of 2004 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) AIR 2012 SC 100 . If so, the details of the steps taken shall be furnished by the two Governments to this court on affidavit of a responsible officer. Post on 08.05.2013 at 3.00 P.M.