The principle of res judicata applies to writ jurisdiction insofar as civil rights pertaining to forfeiture of properties are concerned.

( 1 ) THE petitioner s father Roshan Lal of Amritsar, was curlier detained on 19-12-1974 under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA ). He has since died in 1980. The petitioner, who is his son, is A seeking the quashing of the detention order passed against his father by respondent 3 on 19-12-1974 under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA. Petitioner is also seeking the quashing of the order dated 29-5-78, passed by respondent 2 under Section 19 (1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called SAFEMA) against the properties of his late father and. mother and to restrain respondents from dispossessing the petitioner of the said properties at Amritsar.

( 2 ) WHILE the detention order dated 19-12-74 was one issued against the petitioner s father the forfeiture relates to the properties of his father and mother, to whom notices under SAFEMA were issued on 30-4-77 (Ex. P. 5 ). The petitioner s father died in 1980 while his mother died on 31-12-91. They filed Writ Petitions 219 and 220/79 in the Supreme Court challenging the detention order dated 19-12-1974 and the SAFEMA order dated 30-4-1977. Those writ petitions were dismissed by a nine-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court Judges in Attorney General for India Vs. Amritlal Pragivandas [1994 (5) SCC 54] (1 ). The Supreme Court refused to set aside the detention order as well as the order passed under SAFEMA. After the parents death the petitioner is now once again challenging both the orders.

( 3 ) IT is to be noted that the detention order dated 19-12-74 against the petitioner s father under the COFEPOSA was issued well before the coming into force of the Emergency on 25-6-75. Therefore he was given copy of the grounds of detention. It was only on 1-7-75 that the COFEPOSA Act was amended. The SAFEMA was brought into force w. e. f. 5-11-1975.

( 4 ) PETITIONER claims that his father s detention which started before the Emergency, was continued during the Emergency and that an order under Section 12a of COFEPOSA was passed. The Emergency was revoked on 21-3-77 and the petitioner s father was released on, 22-3-77 (Ex. P. 2), the next day.

( 5 ) NOW the detention dated 19-12-74 having taken place before the commencement of the Emergency on 25-6-75, the detenu i. e. petitioner s father was not precluded from challenging the detention and Article 359 did not came in the way till 25-6-75. The petitioner s brother filed Crl. W. P. 138/75 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29-4-75 questioning his father s detention (Ex. P. 3) but the same remained pending. In other words petitioner s father did not succeed in the challenge of the detention before the Emergency. Nor did he take steps to have the writ decided later. The above Crl. W. P. 138/75 filed in the High Court was dismissed as infructuous on 24-2-78 (Ex. P. 4) because of the release of petitioner s father on 22-3. 77.

( 6 ) AFTER the petitioner s father was released on 22-3-77, notices were issued to petitioner s father and mother under SAFEMA on 30-4-77 (Ex. P. 5 ). in respect of their properties. They filed objections before the competent authority but still, an order of forfeiture of the properties was passed on 29-5-78. They filed appeals to the Appellate Authority which were dismissed on 2-7-79 (Ex. P7 ). Then they (i. e. father and mother of petitioner) filed Civil W. P. 219/79 and 220/79 in the Supreme Court of India challenging the provisions of SAFEMA as also legality of "the aforesaid detention" under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA (see admission in para 5 of the present writ petition ). Pending disposal of the two writ petitions in the Supreme Court, the father of the petitioner died in 1980 and his mother on 31-12-91. After dealing with the right of the detenu to challenge the detention order and the SAFEMA order. Supreme Court dismissed the said writ petitions on 12-5-94 in the bath. Attorney Genera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document