BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 27.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.(MD).No.20466 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.17361 and 17363 of 2024 Gangadeva ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner/Competent Authority and Administrator, SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA, Sastri Bhavan, New Building Complex, 4th Floor, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent vide his proceedings in F.No.OCA/MDS/02/2023-NDPS dated 22.02.2023, to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For R-1 : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India For R-2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in F.No.OCA/MDS/02/2023-NDPS dated 22.02.2023 and to quash the same.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

(a) The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w

20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

(b) During the course of investigation, the second respondent had passed an ad-interim order of attachment attaching a few movable properties and immovable properties of the petitioner besides freezing his bank account and the bank accounts of his relatives.

(c) The said order of interim attachment was confirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act by the impugned order.

(d) The petitioner was thereafter tried for the aforesaid offences and was acquitted by the judgment of the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.7 of 2023 on 30^th October, 2023.

(e) The State had filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.939 of 2024, which also came to be dismissed by judgment dated 17.09.2025. 3. The above facts are not disputed by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that since he has been acquitted of all the offences charged against him and there are no other cases pending against him, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent would submit that they are not aware of any judgment of acquittal or any appeal filed by the State; that the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order by way of an appeal under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act. The first respondent has also filed a counter affidavit to that effect.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent though would submit that the petitioner was acquitted of all the offences charged and that the appeal filed by the State also came to be dismissed, would state that the petitioner has to approach the Competent Authority or file an appeal as there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. As stated above, the petition impugns the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act, which confirms the attachment order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings had not challenged the said order. The petitioner is unable to point out any infirmity in the attachment of the properties made by the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside.

7. Though the prayer in the Writ Petition is to set aside the impugned order, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court and the said acquittal has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner therefore ought to have sought for a release of his properties in terms of Section 68Z of the NDPS Act, whi