P S AHAMMAD KOYA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are husband and wife. Some of the properties of the appellants were ordered to be forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short 'Safema'). The said action of the authorities is being challenged by the appellants in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. But learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. This appeal is hence filed.

(2.) Appellants have raised alternative contention. One of them was that the provisions of SAFEMA are ultra vires to the Constitution. But with the pronouncement of the decision by a 9 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, AIR 1994 SC 2179 upholding the validity of SAFEMA, the challenge on that ground became completely defused. So the appeal was dismissed along with some other appeals in which the validity of the provisions of SAFEMA was challenged. But, appellants applied for review of the judgement contending that they have raised other contentions touching the merits of the forfeiture order and the same was not considered while dismissing the appeal. The review application was allowed and the writ appeal was, therefore, heard on merits.

(3.) Facts in brief are these : First appellant, who is the husband of the second appellant, was detained under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) from 16-8-1975 to 24-3-1977. The competent authority issued a notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA to both appellants to show cause why three items of immovable properties and some cash should not be declared as illegally acquired properties and are hence liable to be forfeited to the Central Government on the around that those properties were acquired by means of income derived from activities prohibited by law. Both appellants submitted their replies. The competent authority appointed under SAFEMA, after considering the explanation of the appellants, orders those properties to be forfeited to the Central Government after declaring that those properties were illegally acquired.