UNION OF INDIA Vs. WINSTON TAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 764 of 2006, a writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking to quash the order dated 23-6-2005, whereunder the property alleged to have been acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, got forfeited in view of Section 6 of the smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act), and the learned single Judge quashed the same and remanded the matter to the second respondent in the writ petition, with a further direction to give notice to the respondents 1 and 2 writ petitioners and to hold an enquiry before proceeding further in the matter, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 are the original owners of the property in question, from whom the respondents 1 and 2 - writ petitioners have purchased it, after the initiation of the action under Section 6 of the Act, but however, the respondents 3 and 4, despite service of notice on them, avoided the proceedings, both before the learned single Judge as well as before this Court, in spite of newspaper publication of the notice in the Times of india, dated 28-2-2009, notifying that the matter will be taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) THE undisputed facts are that : Respondents 3 and 4 are treated as 'the persons', within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Act, on whom the provisions of the Act are attracted. A detention order dated 25-3-2003 came to be passed against the fourth respondent under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), pursuant to which proceeding to forfeit the property acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, as provided under Section 6 of the Act, was initiated on 8-12-2003. An explanation was called from the respondents 3 and 4 by the said notice issued under Section 6 (1) of the act. Thereafter on 21-4-2004, the respondents 3 and 4 were served with a second notice to submit their explanation on or before 4-5-2004. On receipt of the second notice dated 21-4-2004, respondents 3 and 4 submitted their explanation on 26-5-2004, wherein the respondents 3 and 4 also sought for personal hearing, on which date the proceeding was adjourned to 18-6-2004 at the request of respondents 3 and 4 and again was adjourned to 15-7-2004 and finally it was heard on 4-10-2004 giving a fair opportunity to the respondents 3 and 4, though they avoided personal hearing. The proceeding was again adjourned to 16-3-2005 and thereafter to 30-3-2005, on which date too, the respondents 3 and 4 remained absent. As a result, summons were served on respondents 3 and 4 on 3-5-2005 through the enforcement directorate, as they continued to remain absent and an order of forfeiture was passed on 23-6-2006 under section 7 (1) of the Act, which was impugned in the writ petition.