Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Once the detention order is declared as void, obviously, it will render all the consequential acts and action taken on the basis of such void order to be bad in law ab initio. However, revocation of order would stand in different footing. Ipso facto, it would not affect the acts done pursuant to or after passing of the order of detention but before its revocation, unless there are statutory provisions to the contrary. In case of revocation, it implies cancellation of the order. Question of cancellation of an order can arise only when there exists an order. Cancellation implies termination. Termination is to put an end to something. It presupposes existence of the thing or contract or liability or the right which existed and which is being put to an end. Besides, the revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 and/or Section 8(f) itself would not affect the proceedings under SAFEMA which had commenced. It is to be noted that the proceedings are initiated under Section 6 of SAFEMA in relation to illegally acquired properties by the persons, who is either convicted under the Customs Act or Foreign Exchange Regulations Act or the person in respect of whom an order of detention is made under COFEPOSA or the relations of such persons who are benefited by the unlawful activities of the detenu. It is the making of the order of detention itself would entitle the Competent Authority to issue notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA to such person or persons, and the revocation of such order under Section 11 and/or Section 8(f) of COFEPOSA would not affect the proceedings once initiated under SAFEMA. The applicability of SAFEMA is terminated only on happening of the circumstances enumerated and the conditions to the extent provided under the proviso to sub-section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA are satisfied and not otherwise.

17. Taking into consideration both the above quoted decisions of the Apex Court, declared by three Judges Bench in both the matters, it is clear that the pre-requirement, and rather only requirement, for invoking the powers under Section 6 and/or 7 of SAFEMA is the valid order of detention issued under COFEPOSA. The validity of the order spoken of is at the stage of inception i.e. at the stage of making of or issuing the order of detention. In other words, if the order of detention remains valid, but continued detention is rendered illegal or bad, that by itself will not affect the validity of the order of detention but its implementation i.e. of detention, would not be permissible for certain supervening acts or reasons. In other words, for invoking powers under SAFEMA, valid order of detention issued is a pre-condition, in the absence whereof, question of exercising powers under Section 6 and/or 7 would not arise at all. Certainly therefore contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is obviously correct to the extent that the existence of valid order of detention under COFEPOSA at the time of invocation of the powers under Section 6 of SAFEMA is absolutely necessary. Therefore, for invoking powers under Section 6 and/or 7 of SAFEMA, the issuance of valid order of detention under COFEPOSA coupled with the existence of such valid order of detention at the stage of invoking powers under those provisions of SAFEMA is necessary.

21. The effect or the consequences which the revocation of order of detention will have on the forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA are those which are specified under the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings for forfeiture are undoubtedly to be held before the competent authority constituted under SAFEMA, but under Section 15 of SAFEMA, such authority enjoys the powers akin to that of the civil Court available under the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. Obviously, the aggrieved party gets an ample opportunity to establish his case including the right to lead evidence. Undoubtedly, the burden of proof regarding the property being legally acquired lies upon such person in terms of Section 8 of SAFEMA. There is also an appellate remedy under Section 12 of SAFEMA available against the order of the competent authority. The decision by the competent authority is subject to the appeal remedy and cannot be assailed in any civil Court in view of specific bar provided in that regard under Section 14 of SAFEMA. Besides, the provisions of SAFEMA have overriding effect as provided under Section 24 of SAFEMA. At the same time, Section 7(3) and (4) of SAFEMA provides for vesting of the forfeited property in the Government free from all encumbrances and further Section 19 empowers taking possession of such property by the competent authority. These provisions clearly disclose finality to the proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of SAFEMA in relation to the forfeiture of the property. Being so, once the forfeiture proceedings attain finality, can it be said that any subsequent act, including the revocation, in relation to the detention order which was valid on the day when it was issued, and consequent to which the proceedings for forfeiture were initiated, would affect such forfeiture proceedings ? The provisions of law comprised under SAFEMA nowhere even remotely suggest that in any such circumstances, those proceedings would be affected in any manner. The judicial pronouncement only speaks of the pending proceedings being rendered invalid provided the order of detention is declared to be void by the Court and not otherwise. Albeit, the question of initiating the proceedings under Section 6 of SAFEMA could not arise after revocation of the order as in that case 'the cause' for invoking such powers would not be "in existence", in view of clauses (i) to (iii) of the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA.

24. The decision in Karimaben K. Bagad's case (supra), is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA was issued after revocation of the detention order. Apparently, therefore, when the provisions of Section 6 of SAFEMA were sought to be invoked, there was no order of detention in existence and therefore, the provisions of clause (i) of Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA were clearly attracted. That is not the case in the matter in hand. Similarly, the decision in Gangadevi v. Union of India's case (supra) is also of no help. In the said case, the order of detention was issued on 25th September, 1975 and was served upon the detenu on 11th March, 1976. On 1st May 1976, the detenu expired while in detention. The notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA was sought to be issued on 19th October, 1976. 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. Both the decisions having been delivered in totally different set of facts are of no help to the petitioner to canvass her case in the matter in hand.