S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya for the petitioners whereas, learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and learned advocate Mr..................for respondent no.4 State. Perused the record.

"The petitioner has prayed for following relief :

"(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property, New Delhi in FPA No. 20/BOM/2008 as well as the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the Competent Authority.

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 18.12.1985 passed against the detenue- Mansukhlal Gordhandas Raichura and it may be further declared that since the order of detention itself is bad and illegal, SAFEMA proceedings based upon such an order of detention are vitiated and, therefore, the order of forfeiture under Section 7 of SAFEMA as well as the order of the Tribunal may be quashed and set aside;

(c) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the forfeited properties;

(d) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief’s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The sum and the substance of the petitioners case is summarized as under.

2.1. Mansukhlal Gordhandas Raichura was detained under the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange And Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by order dated 18.12.1985, copy of such order is at Annexure-A.

2.2. Perusal of such detention order makes it clear that except disclosing that Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing said M. G. Raichura from abetting the smuggling of goods, the Government has directed to detain him under section 5, of COFEPOSA, in exercise of their powers under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA.

2.3. Thereby there is no disclosure about any activity of M.G. Raichura, which can be considered as a smuggling activity, in such detention order dated 18.12.1985. However, on the same day Home Department of the State Government has served the grounds of detention to him, copy of which is produced at Annexure-B. In such grounds of detention which is also dated 18.12.1985, in as many as 32 pages, it is alleged that on 10/01/1985 the customs staff of customs division M.P. Porbandar saw one truck coming from the godown of Jetty when they were patrolling the area. However, when they signaled the aforesaid truck to stop, the driver did not respond and proceeded ahead, therefore, customs staff had chased the truck and forced to stop it which is bearing registration no. GTF-3767. While interrogating the persons found from the truck namely Bhanubhai Pragjibhai Rughani the driver and Mangal Govind Jebar, helper, it is the case of the customs department that both of them had identified photographs of several persons including detenue M.G. Raichura and confirmed that he has referred the name of such persons in his statement dated 11.09.1985. The grounds of detention is that 34 packages of contraband goods have been recovered. There is no direct evidence to confirm that detenue M.G. Raichura is involved in smuggling activity except the statement of driver and helper on truck from which alleged smuggled goods in the form of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin and electronic goods were found and seized. The another piece of evidence disclosed in such grounds for detention is in form of statement dated 13.09.1985, of detenue himself alleging that in such statement the detenue had inter-alia disclosed that he was also associated in the lending of smuggled goods in his go-down at Porbandar Jetty. However, in fact