ORDER

1. HEARD THE PARTIES.

2. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGING ORDER D RENDERED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON 20-8-1997 WHEREBY WRIT APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGING NOTICES ISSUED TO THEM FOR INITIATING CONFISCATION PROCEEDING UNDER SECTIONS 68-H AND 68-I OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE NDPS ACT") HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

3. IT APPEARS THAT IN THE MEANTIME FINAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE CONFISCATION PROCEEDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER ITS ORDER DATED 28-1-1998. THE APPELLANTS INSTEAD OF MOVING THE HIGH COURT CONCERNED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER FILED PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BEARING NOS. 2037-43 OF 1998 BEFORE THIS COURT IN WHICH NOTICES HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED AS YET. THE APPELLANTS ALSO FILED WRIT APPLICATIONS BEARING WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 28-40 OF 1998 BEFORE THIS COURT F CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF SECTIONS 68-A(2)(C) AND (D) OF THE NDPS ACT IN WHICH ALSO NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED, BUT THE SAME HAVE BEEN SIMPLY TAGGED WITH THE CRIMINAL APPEAL REFERRED TO ABOVE. SO FAR THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE CONCERNED IN OUR VIEW THE SAME HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS FINAL ORDER HAS BEEN ALREADY PASSED IN THE CONFISCATION PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF THE SAID CASE.

4. SO FAR AS THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE CONCERNED, IN OUR VIEW, INSTEAD OF MOVING THIS COURT DIRECTLY THE APPELLANTS SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE HIGH COURT CONCERNED CHALLENGING THE APPELLATE ORDER, AS SUCH THIS COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THE SAME. WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE WRIT PETITIONS AS WELL, AS THE MATTER CAN BE TAKEN TO THE HIGH COURT.

5. THIS BEING THE POSITION, ALL THE AFORESAID CASES ARE DISPOSED OF GIVING LIBERTY TO THE APPELLANT TO MOVE THE APPROPRIATE HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE

APPELLATE ORDER WHEREIN IT WILL ALSO BE OPEN TO THEM TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND IN CASE SUCH PETITIONS ARE FILED, THE HIGH COURT SHALL NOT THROW OUT THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF DELAY BUT CONSIDER IT ON MERIT WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED BY ANY OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20-8-1997 PASSED IN THE WRIT APPLICATIONS.