Notice under SAFEMA can be issued to relatives of the convict, not just the convict themselves, and delays in proceedings do not invalidate the actions taken.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition in W.P.No.1149 of 2001 has been instituted challenging the order passed by the competent authority in proceeding dated 28.05.1998 under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred as 'SAFEMA'] and the proceedings of the Appellate Tribunal for forfeiture of property passed in order dated 15.11.2000 in F.P.A.No.32/MDS/98.

2. Similarly, the writ petition in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 also filed challenging the same proceedings by one Mrs.V.Padmavathy. Since both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the same proceedings of the competent authority and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a common order has been passed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. The facts in brief reveals that one Mr.V.P.Selvaraj who is the brother of Mr.V.P.Vadivel, and the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 (Mrs.V.Padmavathy), was convicted on 23.11.1969 for an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. The 2 nd respondent / competent authority initiated an inquiry under Section 18 of the SAFEMA and commenced the inquiry. Relevant documents were collected from various sources, including Income Tax Department, and were examined by the competent authority. Verifications were conducted and extracts of the account copies from the petitioner's book of accounts were secured by the competent authority in the year 1979.

4. The petitioner / Mrs.V.Padmavathy submitted her explanation regarding source of acquisition of properties, investments in business and the books of accounts in February, 1980. On 22.08.1980, the competent authority called upon the petitioner to furnish further details, explanations, evidence, and to produce books of accounts maintained from 1950 to 1980 for verification. On 29.08.1980, the petitioner submitted a reply along with documents and evidences. The petitioners appeared through their authorised representatives and produced books of accounts before the competent authorities during September to December, 1980. The competent authorities asked for certain clarifications, which were also furnished by the petitioners.

5. At the outset, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the competent authority under Section 18 of SAFEMA. Finally, on 29.03.1993, the competent authority issued a communication to notify the petitioner to be person affected under Section 2(2)(c) of SAFEMA. Consequently, a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA was issued vide notice dated 24.02.1994. The petitioners submitted their explanations in response to the notices issued under Section 6(1). On 30.04.1998, the competent authority / 2 nd respondent passed an order of forfeiture under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA. The petitioners preferred Statutory Appeal before the 3 rd respondent on 16.06.1998 and adjudication was conducted. The Tribunal passed final orders on 15.11.2000, which is impugned in the present writ proceedings.

6. Challenging the order of the competent authority and the Tribunal, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.1149 and 1150 of 2001 to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 15.11.2000. This Court held that a notice under Section6(1) of the SAFEMA has to be issued to the convict, and in the absence of any such notice, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

7. Challenging the order of the High Court, the respondents preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. By judgment dated 14.12.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 24.03.2008 and held as under:

(1) That it is not necessary that a separate Notice must be issued on the convict. It is enough tha