Madras High Court
The Competent Authority vs T.Ugambai (Deceased) on 11 March, 2022
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
and
W.M.P.No.30114 of 2000
The Competent Authority,
SAFEM (Forfeiture of Properties Act, 1976),
No.64/1, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Ugambai (deceased)
2.The Registrar,
Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Proeprty,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, 4th Floor,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003.
3.T.Shenikraj
S/o.Ugambai
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
4.T.Premchand
S/o.Ugambai
5.Vimala Bai
D/o.Ugambai
6.Prema Bai
D/o.Ugambai .. Respondents
[R3 to R6 substituted as LRs of
deceased first respondent vide
order dated 11.03.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.5793/2022 in W.P.No.
20705 of 2000]
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second
respondent in FPA/102/MDS/95 dated 05.05.1999 and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar,
Senior Panel Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.G.Baskar [R1]
Mr.Madhanagopal Rao, SPC [R2]
*****
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the second
respondent passed in FPA/102/MDS/95 dated 05.05.1999.
2. The minimum facts that are required for disposing this writ petition
are as under:
One Tejraj was detained under the COFEPOSA on 19.12.1974 by the
Central Government. He died on 15.01.1975. After his death, the competent
authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators
(Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [in short "SAFEMA"], issued a notice
dated 04.03.1978 u/s.6(1) of the SAFEMA to his widow Ugambai asking
her to show cause as to why the properties referred to therein should not be
forfeited to Government as her husband was detained under COFEPOSA. It
appears that this dispute had gone through two rounds earlier. For the
present, it would suffice to state that the competent authority under the
SAFEMA passed forfeiture order on 29.09.1995 forfeiting the property of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
Ugambai on the ground that it was secured in her name by her husband
Tejraj by committing offences under the Customs Act. Challenging the said
order, Ugambai approached the Appellate Tribunal in FPA No.102/MDS/95,
which was allowed on 05.05.1999. Challenging the said order, the
competent authority has filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor
General, Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the first respondent and
Mr.Madhanagopal Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing for the
second respondent.
4. Admittedly, the detention order on Tejraj was passed on 19.12.1974
and within a month i.e. on 15.01.1975, he died. Under such circumstances,
the entire proceedings relating to SAFEMA for forfeiture of the property of
Ugambai stands vitiated because Tejraj should be alive to prove that he had
not acquired the property in his wife's name through illicit means. It is not
the case of the competent authority that Ugambai was involved in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
smuggling activities and had acquired the property in question. Therefore,
the view taken by us is fortified by the judgment of the Bombay High Court
in Padma Nirmal Agarwal v. Union of India and others [2005 SCC
Online Bom 296], wherein it is held as follows:
"24. ... Obviously, pursuant to the death of the detenu, the
order of detention had lapsed with effect from 1st May, 1976 and
therefore on 19th October, 1976 the said order of detention was not
in existence and therefore, competent authority could not have
invoked the provisions of Section 6 of SAFEMA after 1st May, 1976."
In the result, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[P.N.P., J] [A.A.N., J]
11.03.2022
(2/2)
Index: Yes/No
gm
P.N.PRAKASH, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 11.03.2022
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
and
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J
gm
To
1.The Registrar,
Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, 4th Floor,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Writ Petition No.20705 of 2000
11.03.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
