Paramjit Singh vs Union of India and Others

Mukul Mudgal, J.—This writ petition challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 31st of October, 2001, issued u/s 6 (1) read with Section 6(2) of the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA''). By this notice, the Competent Authority u/s 15 of the Act has issued Show Cause Notice u/s 6(1) read with Section 6 (2) of the SAFEMA to the petitioner to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which the properties in question are said to be acquired.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge the aforesaid Show Cause Notice itself by way of filing a writ petition directly under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India rather than replying to show cause notice.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition has categorized the following 7 reasons to challenge the show cause notice:-

"(i) Impugned Notice is Vague & non-specific & does not disclose elementary details of specific property, date of purchase and the illegal activity of Detenu to which connected.

(ii) Reason to belief dated 17.2.2000 does not generate honest and bonafide belief that the above-said properties are illegally acquired properties.

(iii) Notice u/s 6(1) Dated 17.2.2000 already issued and above properties forfeited.

(iv) No prima facie case for issuing forfeiture notice.

(v) No nexus or connection with detenu''s illegal activity.

(vi) Directions by the Appellate Tribunal is illegal in law.

(vii) Issuing of show cause notice to the petitioner is malafide and without jurisdiction."

In so far as the first reason is concerned about the notice being vague & non-specific, it is the petitioner''s own case that he is aware of the properties involved in the notice of forfeiture and consequently this plea is untenable.

In so farer as the second reason is concerned that the reason to belief dated 17.2.2000 does not generate honest and bona fide belief that the properties are illegally acquired properties, it is open to the petitioner to show cause and to satisfy the Competent Authority about the said averment.

In so far as the third reason is concerned that the Notice u/s 6(1) dated 17.2.2000 was already issued and above properties forfeited, it is open to the petitioner to show cause to the Competent Authority to demonstrate as to whether the notice is otiose in view of the earlier Order of Forfeiture dated 17.2.2000.

In so far as the fourth reason is concerned that there is no prima facie case for issuance of forfeiture notice and reliance on the Nine Judges'' judgment in Attorney General for India and Others Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and Others, is concerned, at this stage it is not open for this Court to delve into this issue. It is open to the petitioner to satisfy the Competent Authority about this plea to seek withdrawal of the show cause notice. It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is the brother of the detenue and the petitioner''s case that these properties were purchased much prior to the first ever illegal activities is a plea which can well be advanced before the Competent Authority.

In so far as the fifth reason is concerned that the lack of nexus & connection with the detenue''s illegal activity is also a plea which may be urged before the Competent Authority and not directly in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227.

In so far as the sixth reason is concerned that the direction by the Appellate Tribunal is illegal in law and challenge to the Appellate Tribunal''s direction to issue a forfeiture notice u/s 6(1) read with Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge this direction because the petitioners have in fact relied upon this order of the Appellate Tribunal.

In so far as the seventh reason is concerned that the petitioner the issuing of notice is mala fide and without jurisdiction and the reason to belief are based upon guess work cannot be sustained as no malafides are detailed in the writ petition. Considering the plea of the petitioner in the pending Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5336 of 2000 that the lands in question in that petition belonged to the petitioner in the present writ petition, the show cause notice, impugned in the present writ petition prima facie cannot be said to be based upon guess work.

In addition to the pleas raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the property in question was purchased by Paramjit Singh much prior to 1995 and consequently could not have the subject matter of the show cause notice. This pleas can also be advanced in reply to the show cause notice and cannot be a ground for interference at this stage in writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner has sought to approach this Court prematurely and the appropriate cause for the petitioner is to show cause in reply to the Notice dated 31st of October, 2001, issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA and in this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed as premature with no orders as to costs.