KARNATAKA RESTAURANT Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMFOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P. No. 18551 of 1988 disposed of on 6-2-1990 Reported in [1990] 27 ECC 89 (Kar), I quashed the impugned detention order as well as the consequential notice issued under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('the Act') following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hazi Masthan AIR1984 SC 681 , 1984 CriLJ610 , 1984 (1 )Crimes651 (SC ), 1984 (2 )ECC137 (SC ), 1984 (1 )SCALE402 , (1984 )2 SCC427 , [1984 ]3 SCR1 . The only difference on the facts of that case and facts in these petitions are as follows:

(2.) One B.M. Abdul Rahiman a partner of the 1st petitioner Messrs Karnataka Restaurant was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) in the year 1976 as evidenced by Annexure-A to the petition. That order was not challenged by him. The said order as at Annexure-A is the one which has been quashed in the aforementioned writ petition, by my order dated 6-2-1990. In this petition, therefore what remains for consideration on the facts of the case is whether the proceedings initiated under the Act against his property as well as that of the firm would survive. If the detention order disappears then there is no further cause of action for the respondent-competent authority to issue notice for confiscation in the light of the decision if Hazi Mastan's case. Principally the detention order is the basis for assumption of jurisdiction under the Act by the Competent Authority. If there is no detention, the proceedings would be without jurisdiction.

(3.) In that view of the matter the order of the competent authority directing confiscation requires to be quashed. It appears that the order under appeal was stayed by this Court. In that view, quashing of the order under appeal is only formal.