M M ALLAPITCHAI Vs. REGISTRAR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY LOK NAYAK BHAVAN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 29. 01. 1996, rejecting petition dated 04. 12. 1995 and calling upon the petitioner to handover possession of the property in question in terms of Order dated 16. 08. 1993 issued under Section 19 (1) of the Smugglers and Foreign exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 immediately to the district Collector, Thanjavur or to the Officer authorized by him to take possession of the property, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, on the death of the sole petitioner, his legal representatives were substituted as petitioners 2 to 6 as per order of this Court dated 20. 06. 1997 in W. M. P. No. 13434 of 1997.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Additional Central government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that, as the petitioners have not satisfied the conditions of provisions contained in SAFEMFOPA Act, the second respondent has rightly rejected the request, which is sustainable in law. The second respondent after due consideration of the request of the petitioner and the applicability of Section 9 (1) of the Act, finally rejected the claim of the petitioner. He also contended that, inasmuch as the appeal was returned as not maintainable and no decision on merits, the question of following principles of natural justice does not arise. He also contended that the guidelines issued by the Ministry are only of the clarificatory and discretionary nature and even otherwise, the guidelines referred to by the petitioners has been subsequently modified. Accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected.