STATE OF GOA Vs. HIRABHAI SOMABHAI TANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the order dated 15th November, 1989 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Panaji Bench), Goa in Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/89 is under challenge in this appeal. On 24th July, 1975 an order of detention under Section 3(I) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed against the stepfather of the respondent. It is an admitted position that such respondent was kept on detention for more than a year but was released before the expiry of two years. On 29th October, 1979 a notice was issued to the respondent for forfeiture of the property held by the stepfather of the respondent under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. No challenge was made against such notification and on 19th December, 1985 the competent authority under the said Act (hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA) passed order under Section 7 of the SAFEMA directing for forfeiture of the property of the respondent. No appeal or writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging such forfeiture. It may be stated that pursuant to the said order of forfeiture the property was sold in auction in August, 1989 to the Daman Administration for a sum of Rs. 2,59,256/- and possession of the said property had been handed over to the said Daman Administration. The respondent filed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/89 before the Goa Bench on 17th July, 1989 challenging the order of detention of her stepfather. The High Court entertained such writ petition and set aside the order of detention on the finding that the grounds for detention had not been served on the detenu.

(2.) Ms. A. Subhashini the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the said writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court. After the order of forfeiture had been passed under SAFEMA validity of the order of detention was not to be scrutinised. In support of such contention, she has referred to the nine Judges' Bench decision of this Court made in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, (1994) 5 SCC 54 . The ratio of the decision had been summarised in para 56 of the said decision and it has been clearly indicated that

(3.) In view of such decision of this Court, the said writ petition was not maintainable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order by allowing this appeal.