IMPORTANT POINT
Information as to commission of offences.-No officer acting in exercise of powers vested in him under any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the show cause notice dated 15.01.2020 issued under Section 68H of the NDPS Act, 1995 and the letter dated 20.01.2020 be quashed and set aside.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The dispute involved in the present petition is pertaining to property situated at Plot No. 58, Sector - III in Satyagraha Chhavni, Satellite, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that original owners – Dilip Jasubhai Soni and Sangam Jasubhai Soni entered into an agreement to sell the property to Ms. Shantaben Shantilal Panchal and Ms. Bhartiben Bipin Panchal on 04.02.1992. On 23.04.1993, the original owners again entered into an agreement to sell with M/s. Paras Pharmaceuticals which was belonging to the petitioner family. The entire consideration was paid and Paras Pharmaceuticals was handed over possession of property.

2.2 On 16.03.2000, registered sale deeds were entered into between the original owners and the family concern of the petitioner for transfer of such property in their name. Shantaben Panchal and Bhartiben Panchal and M/s. Paras Pharmaceuticals were also signatories to the deeds in question. In the year 2003, the name of the family concern was entered in the register of the society.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that in May 2019, when the petitioner group was approached for the purchase of the property in question, request was made by the petitioner on 22.05.2019 to the society for recording the internal transfers that had taken place inter se in the family in the years 2009 and 2012. It was at that point of time that the society on 13.08.2019 addressed a letter to the petitioner that the society had received a letter dated 30.07.2017 addressed by the authorised officer under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA Officer), asking the society to supply all information and documents pertaining to the property and also to see that no transfer be made of the property in question without first obtaining an NOC from the department. The Society also together with its letter of 13.08.2019 attached the letter of SAFEMA Officer dated 30.07.2017. On 14.08.2019 and 16.09.2019, the petitioner addressed various letters to the officer for issuing an NOC. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the society had informed them that they had registered transfers and recorded names of the petitioners in accordance with the sale deeds.

2.4 Having failed to elicit any response for a request that the petitioner be permitted to transfer the properties to this buyer and an NOC be issued, the petition was filed. On 08.01.2020, this court issued notice to the respondents and it was made returnable on 22.01.2020. It was on 15.01.2020 that the impugned notice and the letter of 20.01.2020 were issued by the authorities which caused the petitioner to amend the petition and challenge these impugned communications.

3. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

(I) The provisions of Chapter VA do not apply to the petitioner and hence the notice issued under Section 68H has been without jurisdiction. He would further submit that reliance placed on Section 68A (2)(f) is misplaced. He would submit that Section (f) would cover holders of property referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (cc) of Section 68 A(2). The present case, even if the allegations are accepted on the face value, the property was held by Mrs. Shantaben Panchal and Bhartiben Panchal who are covered under Section 68A (2)(d). Therefore, according to Mr. Joshi, the provision is wrongly applied.

(II) Issuance of notice has also been without fulfilment of pre-condition provided under Section 68H. Drawing attention to the provisions of Section 68H, it is submitted that at the outset, it can b