JUTHIKA RANI SIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the notice dated 11th May, 1978 (Annex. A) issued by the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority, Calcutta, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.

(2.) It is contended that the purported notice is vague, devoid of particulars, and in fact, the same is not in conformity with the requirements as laid down under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The writ petition and the Rule are contested by the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Saha, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, could not have any reason to believe on the alleged information and/or relevant materials on the basis of which he could entertain any belief that the properties held by the writ petitioner were illegally acquired within the meaning of Section 3(l)(c) of the above-mentioned Act. The immovable properties as stated in the Schedule to the impugned notice have been acquired long prior to the promulgation of the Gold Control Act and the petitioner is not a person within the mischief of Section 2(2) of the said Act and therefore the said impugned order is bad in law.