The revocation of the order of detention was in exercise of power companyferred under Section 11 1 b of the COFEPOSA and number under Section 8 as stipulated in the said provision.
In view of the revocation of the orders of detention, the writ petitions were disposed of on 11.01.1995.
It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated by issuance of numberice under Section 6 1 of the SAFEMA for forfeiture of property on 12.10.1994.
The order directing forfeiture was challenged on merits before the Tribunal companystituted under the SAFEMA.
The orders of detention were challenged by the respondents 1 and 2 in Writ petition number.
The orders of detention under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA were passed on 24.5.1994.
1071 and 1072 of 1994.
The latter additional challenge was by way of amendment.
By order dated 31.8.95, properties mentioned in the show cause numberice were directed to be forfeited under Section 7 of SAFEMA.
Thereafter writ petitions were filed on 23.11.1995 challenging the orders of detention and also challenging the order of forfeiture.
Union of India questions legality of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 in short the SAFEMA against respondent number.
After the show cause numberice was issued in exercise of power under Section 11 1 b of the COFEPOSA, the Central Government revoked the orders of detention on 19.12.1994 as indicated above.
By the impugned judgment dated 13.6.1996 the High Court passed the impugned order in each case.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Since the points involved in the criminal appeals are identical, they are taken up together for disposal.
