COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AHMEDABAD ETC. versus AMRITLAL CHANDMAL JAIN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 29-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AHMEDABAD ETC. 
v. 
AMRITLAL CHANDMAL JAIN AND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 29, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. WADHWA JJ.] 
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) 
Act, 1976-Sections 6 and 8-Notice of Forfeiture-Preventive Detention-
Proceedings initiated under SAFEMA on the basis of an earlier detention 
C order made under COFEPOSA-Such order of detention cannot be questioned 
unless the same was challenged by the detenu or his relatives or his associates 
when the order was in force and that challenge had either been upheld or 
negatived-But where on the ground of the release of detenu, the Writ of 
Habeas Corpus is disposed off without going into the question of validity of 
D the order , detenu cannot be made to suffer holding that he did not 
successfully challenge his detention order-Such detenu or his relatives or 
his associates are not debarred from challenging said order of detention 
subsequently when notices under Section 6 of SAFEMA are issued to them. 
Constitution of India, Articles 22(5), 32 and 226-Detentiorr--Writ of 
E Habeas Corpus filed-Challenge is in effect to the legality and validity of 
grounds of detention-Detenu need not file separate writ seeking Writ of 
Certiorari to challenge validity of grounds. 
The first respondent was detained under Section 3 of COFEPOSA by 
order dated July 21, 1982. He challenged the detention order before this 
F court by Writ of Habeas Corpus. The appellants-State revoked the detention 
order, by order dated 18.10.1982. But on the same day, by separate order on 
same grounds, the respondent was again detained and this led to filling of 
second Writ Petition before this court by the respondent, Subsequently the 
first Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. During the pendency of the 
second Writ Petition, by order dated 8.1 J.1982, the respondent was ordered 
G to be released on parole and in the meanwhile his detention period was 
reduced till 16.08.1983 and he was released on that day. This led to the 
disposal of the second Writ Petition with the observation that the period of 
parole would be taken into account for the purpose of detention, 
On 10.10.1985 the competent authority issued notice under Section 6 
H ofSAFEMA to the respondent. The respondent challenged this before the 
64 
COMPETENT AUTHORITY v. A.C. JAIN 
65 
High Court. Subsequently the appellants revised the grounds of notice under A 
Section 6 and issued another notice which led to filing of another Writ 
Petition, following which notice under Section 8 of SAFEMA was issued 
which was challenged by the Respondent before High Court. Since the 
foundation of action against the respondent was earlier detention, Writ 
Petitions were allowed holding that the order of detention of the respondent B 
was illegal and the proceedings under SAFEMA were quashed. 
Thereafter, the search and seizure operations were conducted at the 
premises of the Respondent by the Income-Tax Authorities and 1465.201 
kgs of silver was seized. The respondent approached the Settlement 
Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner passed orders for releasing C 
the seized silver to the Respondent. However, the competent authority 
requested Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat not to release the seized 
silver but CIT, Gujarat refused to do so. Against this the Competent Authority 
approached the High Court in a Writ Petition challenging the order of CIT. 
But the same was withdrawn unconditionally and another writ petition was 
filed by competent authority claiming the same relief. Thereafter, by impugned D 
judgment dated 23.06.1993, High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of 
Competent Authority holding the same as infructuous, as proceedings under 
SAFEMA had been quashed. 
In these appeals, challenging order dated 29.04.1993 and 23.06.1993 
the Competent Authority, relying on the law laid down in Amratlal Prajivandas E 
case submitted that proceeding under SAFEMA could not be challenged on 
the alleged ground of detention being illegal unless the detenu chose to 
question his detention before the Court during the period when such order 
of detention was in force or he is unsuccessful in his attack thereon. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. The challenge to the order of detention by respondent was 
not unsuccessful and the respondent or his relatives or his associates were 
F 
not debarred from challenging the order of detention subsequentl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.