A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, essentially takes exception to the notice issued by the Intelligence Officer dated 12.9.1994, freezing and seizure of residential flat bearing No.602 on the 6th floor, Pearl Harbour, Plot No.91, Tulsiwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010 allegedly owned by and belonging to petitioner No.1 as a consequence of detention order dated 4.2.1994 against her son Feroze Rupani. The petition also challenges the order passed by the Competent Authority, NDPS, Mumbai dated 19.6.1996 under section 68I and dated 26.9.1997 in No.CA/BOM/NDPS/1/94 under section 68K of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

2. The Petition also challenges the order dated 19.6.1996 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in FPA No.NDPS-20/BOM/1996. Further, the petitioners pray for setting aside the orders passed by this Court in two Criminal Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners dated 23.7.1999 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1281 of 1997 and dated 26.8.1999 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1365 of 1999.

3. In substance, it is prayed that the seizure order followed by forfeiture of the said residential flat of the petitioner No.1 be set aside and the possession thereof be handed back to the petitioners.

4. This petition is resisted by the respondents. Preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition is raised on the ground of locus of the petitioners and also on the ground of delay and laches in challenging the impugned orders dated 19.6.1996 and 19.8.1997 by this petition filed in April, 2012. Further, also because the impugned actions of the Appropriate Authority qua the said residential flat initiated have attained finality with the dismissal of successive Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners including on account of those decisions having been upheld by the Apex Court consequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners against the decision of this Court in the Writ Petition No.1281 of 1997 as also Writ Petition No.1365 of 1999 (which was treated as review petition). According to the respondents, it is not open to the petitioners to raise issues which could have been raised by the petitioners in the previous three rounds of proceedings before this Court and including before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 3629-30 of 2000. According to the respondents, those grounds and moreso challenge to the impugned orders are barred by doctrine of constructive res judicata. Moreover, the decisions of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the three previous rounds of proceedings filed by the same petitioners, would be binding on this Court and it would not be open for us to examine the correctness or otherwise of the view already taken therein.

5. To examine this preliminary objections, it may be appropriate to advert to the broad facts and the background in which the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. As aforesaid, the preventive detention order was passed against the son of the petitioner No.1 – i.e. Feroze Rupani. As a consequence of the said preventive detention action, notice was issued by the Intelligence Officer on 12.9.1994. No doubt, the notice was addressed to Feroze Rupani and other three persons who were tried as co-accused along with him. Copy of the said notice, however, was also marked to the petitioners herein, presumably, being family members and occupants of the property in respect of which freezing and seizure order was passed by the Authority in exercise of power u/s 68F of the NDPS Act. Further, the son of petitioner No.1 was eventually acquitted in the trial against him for offence punishable under NDPS Act. Be that as it may, order of forfeiture of the said property was passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers u/s 68-I of the Act on 19.6.1996. Thus, the said property came to be forfeited in terms o