DURLABHAI NARSIBHAI JOGIA Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have instituted the present petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2-competent authority dated 31-5-2002 produced at Annexure "e" to the petition which is confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 1st February, 2005 produced at Annexure "f" to the petition and for a declaration that none of the properties mentioned in the said order are illegally acquired properties.

(2.) THE facts leading to the institution of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioners nos. 1 and two are the husband and wife respectively. The petitioner no. 1 Durlabji Narsibhai Jogia came to be detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (" COFEPOSA" for short) by the State Government vide order dated 21-1-1992 which was confirmed by the Advisory Board on 6-4-1992 and as such on completion of the period of detention, the petitioner no. 1 was released. The case against the petitioner no. 1 as reflected in the grounds of detention was that when he was intercepted and checked by the Customs Officers on 31-7-1991, upon search gold biscuits worth Rs. 4,80,000/- were recovered from the pocket of the petitioner no. 1, and therefore, the Customs Officers under the reasonable belief that these gold biscuits were smuggled goods placed the same under seizure as they were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Subsequently, on 18-9-2000 a show cause notice under Section 6 (1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 ("safema" for short) produced at Annexure "a" to the petition was issued to the petitioners and their relatives by the competent authority as the petitioner no. 1"s case was covered under section 2 (2)b) of SAFEMA while the petitioner no. 2 being his wife was covered under section 2 (2)c thereof, calling upon them to indicate the source of their income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which the following properties were acquired by them:

(3.) ON receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners vide reply dated 12-10-2000 produced at Annexure "b" to the petition denied all the allegations made therein and produced documentary evidence like sale-deeds, income-tax returns. The petitioners have also submitted details regarding the acquisition of the properties and the transactions, assessment orders passed by the income-tax authorities, confirmation of the parties who have given loans vide letters dated 21st May, 2001 and 17th September, 2001 copies whereof are produced at Annexures "c" and "d" respectively. According to the petitioners, in spite of their having produced all material to show that the properties were legally acquired the competent authority passed an order dated 31-5-2002 produced at Annexure "e" to the petition forfeiting the aforesaid two properties as mentioned in the show cause notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the respondent no. 1-Appellate Tribunal who by his order dated 1st February, 2006 dismissed both the appeals by a common order and confirmed the order passed by the competent authority, giving rise to the present Special Civil Application.