BIPINCHANDRA GAMANLAL CHOKSHI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SAFEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed that, since the order [of detention passed against mr. Bipinchandra gamanlal chokshi, petitioner no.1, under the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1774 (cofeposa, for short), revoked by the government on lifting of emergency, the act in question, being the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act, 1976 ("safema, for short), is not applicable to any of the petitioners and, therefore, the notices dated 23.8.2001, at annexure 'o' collectively, issued under section 6 of safema are bad and illegal, and void ab initio, and the said notices may be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the notices issued under section 6, at annexure 'o' collectively to the petition, are without jurisdiction and the sane are issued in a mala fide manner. It is also prayed in the petition, that the detention order dated 11.6.1976, at annexure "h" to the petition, passed against mr. Bipinchandra gamanlal chokshi, petitioner no.l, may be quashed and set aside and the notices issued under the, safema pursuant to the aforesaid detention order also may be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the final order issued by the competent authority under section 7 of the safema, which is at annexure 'e' tc the petition, also may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) this petition is having a chequered history. All the four petitioners belong to one family. The petitioners were subjected to preventive detention orders under the provisions of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 ("cofeposa", for short,), so far as petitioners 2 to 4, are concerned, they were detained under cofeposa in ,the year 1974. Prior to that, they were also detained under the provisions of the maintenance of internal security act, 1971 ("misa", for short.), it seems that the said order of detention was quashed and set aside by this court in the year 1974. Subsequently, bipinchandra gamanlal chokshi was also detained under the cofeposa, subsequently, a declaration under section 12-a was also issued, declaring that it was necessary to detain petitioner no.l to deal effectively with the emergency. Subsequently, upon the emergency being lifted, the order of detention passed against petitioner no.l was revoked by the government and petitioner no.l was released from detention. It is the say of the petitioners that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, in view of the emergency prevailing at the relevant time, his case was not referred to the advisory board and the detention order of petitioner no.l was revoked by the order dated 21.3.1977, as per the averments in the petition, so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, they were subjected to notices under safema, the aforesaid petitioners had challenged the issuance of notices, and notices qua the said petitioners were quashed and set aside by this court.

(3.) it is required to be noted that, initially, the petitioners have filed a writ petition before this high court, being special civil application no. 11062 of 2001, challenging the impugned notice issued to the petitioners under section 6 of the act. A learned single judge of this court, by order dated 26.4.2002, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have, straight away, rushed to this court, instead of replying to the said show cause notices. The learned single judge, while disposing of the said matter, observed as under :-