( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Jayant Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. With the consent of the parties these matters are taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THESE two petitions are based on identical fact situation involving common questions of law and hence both are decided by this common order.

( 3 ) THESE two petitions have been filed by the relatives of a COFEPOSA detenu against whom proceedings were taken under the Smugglers and Foreign exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as safem Act ). Concerned Competent Authority under the SAFEM Act had passed the orders with regard to the present petitioners in the proceedings under safem Act and the petitioners in both these petitions had lost their Appeal provided under SAFEM Act. Ultimately, the orders by the Appellate Authority under SAFEM Act were passed against the petitioners on 17-6-1983. At that time several petitions challenging the validity of the provisions of COFEPOSA and safem Act had been filed before the Supreme Court as well as this Court on diverse grounds challenging the orders under the respective Acts and the present petitioners had also filed two Special Civil Application before this Court challenging the orders dated 17-6-1983 passed by the Appellate Authority as also the validity of certain provisions of the COFEPOSA and SAFEM Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6897 of 1996 had filed Special civil Application No. 3469 of 1983 and the petitioner in Special Civil Application no. 6899 of 1996 had filed Special Civil Application No. 3472 of 1983 and both these petitions were rejected by Division Bench of this Court on 9-8-1994 on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 583 : AIR 1994 SC 2179. The orders dated 9-8-1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under :"in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas and Ors. , reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 583, this petition is dismissed. "

( 5 ) THE present petitions were filed on 9-9-1996 and in both these petitions notices were issued on 10-9-1996 and the same were made returnable on 18-9-1996 and 18-9-1996 interim orders were also passed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession. The affidavits-in-reply dated 24-9-1996 have been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in both these matters.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter came up before this Court today Mr. Jayant Patel, learned addl. Standing Counsel for Union of India, who is appearing in these cases for respondent Nos. 1 and 4, raised a preliminary objection at the very threshold and submitted that these petitions cannot be entertained because these very petitioners had earlier filed Special Civil Application and the same had been rejected by this court. Alongwith the affidavits-in-reply the copies of the earlier Special Civil application Nos. 3469 of 1983 and 3472 of 1983 have been filed as also the copies of the orders passed by the High Court rejecting these petitions and Mr. Patel has referred to internal page 24a of the Special Civil Application No. 3469 of 1983 para 15 and the prayer which was made in para 21 (E) of Special Civil Application no. 3469 of 1983 as also to internal page 24a of the Special Civil Application No. 3472 of 1983 para 15 and the prayer which was made in para 21 (G) of the Special civil Application No. 3472 of 1983. The contents of para 15 and para 21 (E) of special Civil Application No. 3469 of 1983 and the contents of para 15 and para 21 (G) of Special Civil Application No. 3472 of 1983 are reproduced as under :"special Civil Application No. 3469 of 1983 : 15. The petitioner submits that the orders of the Competent Authority and the tribunal are also bad in law, illegal, without jurisdiction and in non-application of mind on the following grounds