VEERA SARIN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these proceedings seeks directions calling for the records relevant to the detention order dated 12.7.1975 made under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') as well as for quashing proceedings initiated and orders made under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereafter referred to as 'SAFEMA'). The petitioner's husband Late H.K. Sarin was carrying on business under the name 'Sarin Gem House'.

(2.) Between 1974 and 1976, raids were conducted in Shri Sarin's business premises as well as that of the petitioner and proceedings were initiated under the Customs Act. He was exonerated however, in all the Customs Act proceedings. On 12.07.1975, an order was issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi authorizing the preventive detention of said Shri H.K. Sarin, under COFEPOSA. However, this order was not executed and Shri Sarin was never detained in implementation of it. The second respondent, i.e., the competent authority under the SAFEMA issued a notice under Section 6 (1) of SAFEMA upon Shri H.K. Sarin asking him to respond and disclose his source of income or the means by which he acquired the properties listed in the document. Shri Sarin filed his replies and representations on various dates between 1981 and 1982. Till 5.8.1998, nothing further was heard. Without any further proceeding or hearing - after the last representation of Shri Sarin dated 20.4.1982, an order forfeiting several properties listed out in the schedule was issued on 5.8.1998. It was in these circumstances that Shri Sarin approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing W.P.(C) 1124/1999.

(3.) During the pendency of the proceedings, upon being served with the forfeiture order, an appeal was preferred by Shri Sarin which was rejected on 19.12.2001. By then, Shri H.K. Sarin had passed away on 16.10.2000. Consequently, his heirs including the present petitioners were unaware about the fate of the appeal preferred by him; likewise there is no representation on his behalf in the writ proceedings. The writ petition, therefore, was dismissed for nonprosecution on 16.09.2003. Upon receiving a further Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2005 by the competent authority proposing to execute the orders made under SAFEMA, the petitioner enquired from the authorities and was informed about the outcome of the appeal.