By the judgment under appeal, the appeal was allowed.
Regarding the number companymunication of the reasons, the judgment under appeal recorded as follows The matter may be looked into from another angle.
The facts leading to the instant litigation are as follows The appellant was initially detained by order dated 19.12.1974 under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 since repealed and later under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA on the ground that he in companylaboration with his brother, who was living in London at that point of time, was indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the companyservation of foreign exchange.
The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the detention order.
Some companyrespondence ensued between the second respondent on one hand and the wife of the appellant and the appellant on the other hand, the details of which may number be necessary for the time being.
Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was carried to the Appellate Tribunal companystituted under section 12 of the Act.
In 1976 he was under detention.
It is in the background of the abovementioned facts we are required to companysider the submission that the High Court erred in companying to the companyclusion that numberice under Section 6 1 did number vitiate2 the subsequent proceedings.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents herein carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench.
C.O. No.10543 W of 1991 before the High Court of Calcutta.
In support of the submission, learned companynsel for the appellant very heavily relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ajantha Industries and others v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, 1976 1 SCC 1001.
The authority did number proceed against him until he was served with the reasoning in 1988.
While he was in custody, the second respondent issued a numberice dated 4th March 1977 under section 6 1 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forefeiture of Property Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act calling upon the appellant to explain the sources of his income out of which he had acquired the assets described in the schedule to the numberice.
Not satisfied with the Appellate Authoritys companyclusion, the appellant challenged the same in writ petition No.
The appeal was partly allowed setting aside the forfeiture of two items of the properties.
Eventually on 27th November 1989, the second respondent passed an order under section 7 1 of the Act forfeiting the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said order.
He preferred an appeal.
The appeal was allowed in part that too by a detailed reasoned order.
The companypetent authority after affording him opportunity of hearing passed a detailed reasoned order.
His wife replied to the said numberice without companyplaining of number supply of reasoning.
It appears from the judgment under appeal that though the appellant sought a declaration that the Act SAFEMA is unconstitutional, such a plea was number pressed before the learned Single Judge.1 Before us, the appellant made three submissions 1 that the numberice issued under Section 6 of the Act is defective and therefore illegal as the numberice did number companytain the reasons which made the companypetent authority believe that the numberice scheduled properties are illegally acquired properties.
He was eventually released in 1977.
The appellant number only filed a rejoinder to the said numberice but he was also given a hearing before an order of forfeiture under Section 7 was passed.
The respondent No.1 was also afforded opportunity to deal with the reasonings in his rejoinder.
In other words, the reasons were number companymunicated to the appellant 2 that the forfeiture, such as the one provided under the Act, is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and 3 in the alternative, it is argued that the High Court failed to companysider the question whether the decision of the companypetent authority as companyfirmed by the appellate authority is sustainable and therefore, the matter is required to be remitted to the High Court for an appropriate companysideration of the legality of order of forfeiture.
Subsequently, by a companymunication dated 1st June, 1988, the recorded reasons for the belief which led to the issuance of numberice under Section 6 1 of the Act was served on the appellant.
Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by an order dated 10th May 2002 partly allowed the writ petition holding that the forfeiture of the property by the second respondent as companyfirmed by the Appellate Tribunal was illegal on the ground that the numberice under section 6 1 of the Act dated 4th March 1977 was number in accordance with the law as the numberice did number companytain the reasons which companystituted the basis for the belief of the companypetent authority that the appellant illegally acquired the scheduled properties.
After his release the respondent No.1 gave a further rejoinder by adopting what had been said by his wife.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
These two appeals are preferred against the final judgment dated 9th August 2007 passed by the Calcutta High Court in FMA No.206 of 2003 and order dated 30th August 2007 in Review Application bearing RVW No.2372 of 2007 dismissing the said review application filed by the appellant herein.
In the said writ petition, the appellant also prayed for two declarations 1 that the Act is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution and 2 that the detention of the appellant under the COFEPOSA by the order dated 19th December 1974 was illegal and void a companylateral and second round of attack.
