Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 1497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... endorsed the relevant order, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappraise the matter. All that the High Court seeks to ascertain is whether the procedure adopted by the authorities under the relevant statute was rational, reasonable and proper. The High Court would also attempt to find out whether due notice was given to the writ petitioner, whether he was afforded a fair hearing and a reasoned order was passed. Once the High Court is satisfied that the order complained against was passed by an authority possessing jurisdiction, that the procedure adopted was reasonable and the process of adjudication culminated in a cogent decision, the High Court would not look any further. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tes, for the Appellant. Shri Vipul Kunduliaya, Rahul Sarkar and Rishov Das, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The Court : The appeal is utterly unmeritorious appeal filed more in hope than anything else. 2. The writ petitioner-appellant appears to have been an associate of a detenu charged under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. In such capacity as an associate of a COFEPOSA detenu, the writ petitioner received a notice of forfeiture under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. 3. By the judgment and order impugned dated July 23, 2015 [2015 (325) E.L.T. 81 (Cal.)], the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red to demonstrate that such property was acquired by illegal funds. 5. It is evident from the writ petition that on February 7, 1989 an order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1974 directing the writ petitioner to be detained and kept in Presidency Jail, Calcutta. The grounds of detention indicated that the writ petitioner indulged in receiving and making payments in India in an unauthorised manner under instructions from persons resident outside India in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The grounds of detention also indicated that the writ petitioner indulged in such illegal activities in association with one Abdul Gani Vali Md. Pothiawala from whom the writ petitioner apparently recei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thority directed forfeiture of the relevant properties of the writ petitioner and the acquisition thereof by the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 8. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Act of 1976, which was ultimately dismissed on December 7, 2009. It is such order of December 7, 2009 which has been challenged in the present proceedings. 9. In exercise of the authority of judicial review, the scope for interference is rather limited. When a fact-finding authority has addressed the objections of the writ petitioner and an appellate authority has endorsed the relevant order, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappraise the matter. All th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst him to detain him. Even if the writ petitioner s status as a detenu under the Act of 1974 was wiped clean upon the opinion of the Advisory Board to not proceed against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner s association with the said Pothiawala was good ground under Section 2(2)(d) of the Act of 1976 to forfeit any property of the writ petitioner. 11. As to whether the writ petitioner was an associate of the said Pothiawala or the writ petitioner could be said to have had no nexus with such person, was essentially a question of fact. When the writ court discovered that a fact-finding authority had addressed the matter and had rendered a finding which was endorsed in appeal, unless glaring anomalies were demonstrated, the writ cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates