A detention order's revocation invalidates associated property forfeiture actions unless a direct nexus to illegal gains is established, emphasizing due process protections.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed primarily against an order dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure-H) passed by the appellate Tribunal for forfeiture property, New Delhi in P.A.No.01/AHD/90. The proceedings before the appellate Tribunal was an appeal against the order dated 21.12.1988 by the competent authority The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short “SAFEMA”) passed in CA/AHD/2(c)/I-21/83-84.

2. These proceedings were initiated under Section 6 of the SAFEMA Act, wherein the petitioner was issued notice under Section 6 of based on order of detention dated 18.10.1982 in CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA”) against one Rekhaben Chimanlal Sheth, who is the younger sister of the present petitioner.

3. The petition was filed in the year 1991 and thereafter, had chequred history which would be relevant to be mentioned herein.

4. In the petition, the prayers were also made challenging the order of detention dated 18.10.1982 against Rekhaben Chimanlal Sheth. The prayer was also made for declaring the provisions of the Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976, the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 as illegal and unconstitutional.

4.1. The prayer was also made to revoke the order of detention dated 18.10.1982 against the sister of the petitioner and also to declare the provisions of The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property Act), 1976 as unconstitutional and beyond the competence of the Legislative power of Parliament.

4.2. And consequential prayer for issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the notice under Section 6 (Annexure-F) of the SAFEMA Act.

5. Obviously, the interim prayers at the relevant time were also made, wherein time and again various orders has been passed from time to time, the Court may reproduce the relevant orders from the old record of the proceedings. Amongst the first order passed by this Court on 21.9.1991, this Court has passed an order which would read as under, which was in handwritten form and part of the record which is reproduced as under:-

“Rule. To be heard with Spc. C.A.No.5684/2015. Let the notice of rule be issued to the Attorney General. There will be an ad- interim order, restraining respondent No.3 from taking possession of the foretasted property on condition that the petitioner will pay compensation that may be fixed by the Competent Authority after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, till 9th September. The petitioner has also to file an undertaking to pay the compensation amount as fixed and he should also undertake in this aforesaid affidavit of undertaking that he will not deal with the property in any manner and/or dispose of the same without permission of the Court. Such affidavit of undertaking has to be filed within three weeks from today. In default, ad- interim order will stand vacated.

Notice as to interim relief returnable on 09th September, 1991.

6. Thereafter, on 21.11.1991 ad-interim relief was confirmed by an order which reads as under:-

“Ad-interim relief is confirmed”.

7. Thereafter, the matter came to be adjourned from time to time and on 06.12.2013, by a common oral judgment passed in group of five petitions, which included the present petition, the petition came to be dismissed for default, rule was discharged and interim relief, if any, stood vacated.

8. Thereafter, it appears that the aforesaid order was not within the knowledge of the petitioner however, in view of public advertisement issued in the newspaper on 03.01.2017 by the competent authority and Ad