The single judge held that the enquiry contemplated at the stage of initial investigation was only preliminary based upon prima facie reasons and conclusions and directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with sections 25 and 26 of the 1988 Act forthwith and to afford opportunity to put forth all contentions before the Adjudicating Authority. On appeals  dismissing the appeals, that in the notices issued under section 24(1) of the 1988 Act, the Deputy Commissioner had set out the reasons for forming an opinion that the appellant was a benamidar in respect of the properties in question and was called upon to show cause as to why the properties should not be treated as benami properties. Though the appellant had raised objections it had failed to produce the documents called for by the Commissioner to show that the alleged transactions were reversed subsequently. Instead it complained that there was no fair play on the part of the respondent authorities, while passing orders under section 24(4) of the 1988 Act. The proceedings under section 24 only required a recording of prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction. The appellant had failed to furnish the necessary documents to substantiate the contention that the alleged transactions were not benami transactions. After making enquiry and calling for reports or evidence and taking into account all the relevant materials the Commissioner with the prior approval of the approving authority had passed separate orders under section 24(4) of the 1988 Act for continuing the provisional attachment of the properties till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under section 26(3) of the 1988 Act, which were purely provisional in nature. That apart, the provisions of law mandated the respondent authorities to furnish such documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant only at the stage of adjudication proceedings and there was no provision under the 1988 Act to provide an opportunity to the appellants to cross examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage. In the absence of any provision of law and the compelling circumstances warranting the respondent authorities to provide an opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses, whose statements had been relied on by the respondent authorities, to the appellants at the stage of section 24 proceedings, the plea raised by the appellant in that regard could not be countenanced. Therefore, there was no error in the orders passed by the Commissioner. The appellant had not made out any case to interfere with the orders under section 24(4) of the 1988 Act and the orders dismissing the writ petitions at this stage.