1. The petitioner is the brother of one Mr.V.P.Selvaraj. The said Mr.V.P.Selvaraj was convicted under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 for an offence relating to seizure of 100 bars of gold in November 1969. The said conviction has become final. Some of the properties belonging to the convict were ordered to be forfeited on 23/03/1996 by the competent authority under Section 7(i) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Subsequently, the competent authority issued a notice to the petitioner, the brother of the convict, calling upon him to explain as to why some of the properties belonging to the petitioner should not be forfeited as they are all illegally acquired properties as defined in the said Act. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the properties are not illegally acquired properties in terms of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, they are not liable to be forfeited. Thereafter, the competent authority, by order dated 30.08.1999 rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and held that the properties are illegally acquired properties and, therefore, ordered for forfeiture of the same in favour of the Government. Challenging the same, the petitioner appealed before the appellate tribunal under the Act in FLA No.41/MDS/99. The appellate tribunal by order dated 04.07.2001, rejected the appeal thereby holding that the forfeited properties were acquired by the petitioner with the illegal earnings of the convict Mr.V.P.Selvaraj. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is, now, before this Court with this writ petition.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner would raise mainly the following grounds:- (i) The competent authority, in the notice issued under 6(1) of the Act, had not indicated the reasons which made him to believe that the properties are illegally acquired properties in terms of the Act. (ii) The competent authority had failed to record such belief in writing before issuing the notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction. (iii) In the absence of notice to the convict as required under Section 6(2) of the Act, issuance of notice to the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. (iv) There is total non application of mind on the part of the competent authority into the facts of the case and thus, the entire proceeding is vitiated. (v) Though the petitioner happens to be the brother of the convict, there is not even any prima facie material to show that there has been nexus between the properties and the alleged illegal earnings of the convict. (vi) The properties in question were purchased during 1960s which were duly accounted for. The petitioner was doing gold business and various other businesses. It is further stated that the income derived from such sources have been properly assessed to income-tax. Further, under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, some more income was declared and the same was also assessed by the Income-tax Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the improvements made on the said properties by the petitioner from out of the declared income under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme would amount to illegal acquisition. The presumption that the properties are illegally acquired properties in terms of the Act also stands rebutted. On these grounds, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, it is contended.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would oppose the writ petition on the following grounds:- (i) There is no legal necessity under the Act to indicate in the notice itself the reasons for the belief of the competent authority that the properties are illegally acquired properties in terms of the Act and it would be suffice, if reasons are supplied to the party on demand. (ii) The legal requirement is only to record the rea