1. In these writ petitions the interpretation and the application of the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976 (SAFEMA; the Act) and the effect of the orders passed under the Act are in question. The writ petitioners are the relatives of the detenue/convict and the challenge is to the orders of forfeiture passed under SAFEMA in respect of properties standing in the name of the petitioners.

2. I have elaborately heard the submission of the learned Senior counsel Mr.B.Kumar for the petitioner in W.P.No.7609 of 2001, Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26466 of 2001, Mr.Hajamoideen Gisti learned Senior Standing counsel for the Respondents and Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Respondents.

3. Before I proceed to examine the facts in each of the writ petitions and the validity of the orders passed by the competent authority under the Act which were confirmed by the revisional authority, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of SAFEMA.

4. SAFEMA was enacted to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange m