The competent authority must have reason to believe and record the reasons in writing, and the affected person has the right to seek reasons and defend their case effectively in compliance with the rules of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.P.No.32902 of 2015 :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 26.05.2005 issued in F.No. OCA/MDS/2976/2005 of the Respondent and quash the same.

Prayer in W.P.No.32903 of 2015 :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 10.03.2014 issued in F.No. OCA/MDS/2975/2005 of the Respondent and quash the same.)

Common Order:

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators, (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, (herein after will be referred as “Act”).

2. The impugned notice was issued based on the allegations that the petitioner was holding immovable property in his capacity as a guardian of her son Shri Shiju Jinnah. The said property was illegally acquired within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub Section 1 of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the subject property should not be treated as an illegally acquired property and consequently, forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the said Act.

3. The respondent had fixed the case for personal hearing on various days. The petitioner appeared before the respondent on 10.10.2013 and requested time to procure certain documents. Pertinently, certain proceedings were initiated against the daughter of the writ petitioner Smt.Jisha Jinnah under the provisions of the Act. Allegations against the daughter of the petitioner was that she had procured a total extent of 16 cents at P.V.No.728/97, T.P.No.647, Block No.53, Survey No.63 (Block) at Thaimadam, Changanassery, made out of illegal earnings of the husband of the petitioner, Shri T.H.Jinnah. The daughter of the petitioner participated in the proceedings and an order dated 10.03.2014 was passed by the respondent holding that the said land is to be forfeited to the Central Government in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan would submit that the impugned show cause notice has been issued without any jurisdiction. Since, the proceeding has already been passed against the daughter of the petitioner and there is a finding against the petitioner in the said order, further conduct of inquiry in the case of the petitioner is an empty formality and therefore, the impugned notice issued without jurisdiction is to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 6 of the Act relating to notice of forfeiture. Section 6 would unambiguously stipulate that reasons must be provided. However, in the present case, the impugned order does not provide any information enabling the petitioner to defend his case and therefore, the requirements under Section 6 has not been complied with and thus, the impugned notice is to be set aside.

5. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that notice must indicate the value of the property held by the person which is proposed to be forfeited. The notice must state the known source of income and earnings and other assets held by the such person. Information / material made available as a result of report from the officer making the investigation under Section 18 has to be furnished. None of the conditions, as stated above, have been furnished in the impugned notice and thus, the impugned notice is informed with reference to the provisions of the Section 6 of the Act.

6. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Ayisath Munawara in Writ Appeal No.1333 of 2018 dated 13.10.2022. Relying on the said judgement, it is urged that the fact relating to the allegations are to be