R.MAHADEVAN, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.7.2010, setting aside the order of forfeiture dated 30.9.2005 passed by the petitioner.

2. The facts of case, in a nutshell, of the petitioner are that the wife of the 1st respondent Halthija Maimoon was convicted for violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (herein after called as FERA) for foreign currency violations by order dated 1.9.1986 of the Additional Chief Magistrate, Madurai. The 1st respondent being the spouse of the convict, comes within the definition of relative as per the explanation 2 of section 2(2)(c) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulator (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the act). After recording the reasons for belief, a notice under section 6(1) of the act was issued and after giving sufficient opportunities and considering the written submissions of the 1st respondent, the competent authority/the petitioner herein passed an order dated 30.9.2005 under section 7(1) of the act for forfeiture of the properties. As against the same, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent in FPA NO.33/MDS/2005, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 30.7.2010, setting aside the order of forfeiture passed by the petitioner. Hence, contending that the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case, this writ petition has been filed.

3. This court heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:-

a. The main object of the act is to forfeit the illegally acquired properties of the convict and his/her relatives, if source of acquisition of the same cannot be proved to be out of legal sources.

b. Since as per section 6(1) of the act, the competent authority was of the belief that the properties of the 1st respondent are illegally acquired properties, a show cause notice under section 6(1) was issued, calling upon the 1st Respondent to indicate the sources of income, failing which the same would be forfeited.

c. The 2nd Respondent also failed to note that the Petitioner need not spell out any link or nexus either in the reasons recorded for the belief to issue a show cause notice or in the show cause notice issued under section 6(1). The provisions of the act in section 2(2)(c) along with explanation 2, section 3(1)(c)(iii) and section 6(1) do not speak about the illegally acquired properties of the convict. Section 3(1)(c)(iii) states that 'any property acquired by such person and not that of the convict'. As per section 8, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected.

d. Unless the person affected proves the legal source of income in acquiring the properties, it can be held that the properties are illegally acquired properties under the act. Therefore, while recording the reasons the competent authority rightly taken into account the presumption under section 8 and passed the order of forfeiture under section 7(1).

e. Any finding rendered by any other authorities would not bind the petitioner as contemplated under section 21, which states, “no findings of any officer or authority under any other law shall be conclusive for the purposes of any proceedings under this act. The 2nd Respondent has totally misconceived the law while setting aside the order of forfeiture of the Petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of his contentions, relied on the decisions reported in 1994 (5) SCC 54 (Amratlal Prajivandas, 2003 (7) SCC 427 (Kesar Devi Vs. Union of India) and 2008 (14) SCC 186 (Aslam Merchant Vs. Competent Authority).

6. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent has submitted that there is a requirement for the Petitioner to state the link o