IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2000 Mrs.Jeetu Singh Lekhsing Kural .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ashwin Shete i/by M/s.Khaitan & Jaikar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.Ashokan for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated February 25, 1999 passed by the Competent Authority and the Administrator under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short the “Act”). The said order is passed under Sections 7 and 19 of the Act ordering the forfeiture of the flat being Flat No.4, first floor, situate at Vijay Subhash Co-op.Housing Soceity, Plot No.13, 2nd Pandya Lane, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai- 400 054, under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner also challenges the order dated January 18, 2000 passed by the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The relevant and material facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under:- 2. One Mr.Shankar Hira Foman was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was passed on February 17, 1976 by the Government of Maharashtra. The order was neither revoked by the Advisory Board, nor set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner being the wife of said Mr.Foman was issued show cause notice on March 31, 1989 under section 6(1) of the Act being an affected person (A.P.), proposing forfeiture of the said flat and bank account No.2526/13. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the reply was given on May 5, 1989. After considering the reply the competent authority passed order under section 7 of the Act on September 9, 1989. This order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi. It seems that the appeal was dismissed by the order dated February 22, 1993. These orders came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.1440 of 1996 in this Court. The petition was disposed of by an order dated September 19, 1996. The orders passed by the competent authority as also the Appellate Tribunal were set aside. The competent authority was directed to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner into the show cause notice dated March 31, 1989 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner was permitted to produce documents at the time of hearing. 3. It seems that in the meantime the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.7023 of 1993 in this Court challenging the validity of the Act as well as grounds of detention of said Mr.Foman. It further seems that the said petition was dismissed by this Court on June 11, 1996 by reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order under Section 7 of the Act in accordance with law. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on September 19, 1996 in Writ Petition No.1440 of 1996, the petitioner was asked to appear for personal hearing before the competent authority on February 27, 1998 and March 31, 1998. The petitioner however, neither attended hearing nor produced any document. The petitioner also did not submit any explanation. 5. As and by way of last opportunity, the petitioner was given personal hearing on December 16, 1998. On that date, she appeared and asked for adjournment on the ground that earlier the matter was dealt by her husband Mr.Foman, however after the order of remand by this Court in Writ Petition No.1440 of 1996 her husband is not co- operating with her and all the documents pertaining to the subject matter are lying with him and that she could not engage advocate to represent her. In fact perusal of the order dated September 19, 1996 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.1440 of 1996 indicates that the petitioner was permitted to produce documents and at the same time it was made clear that she will not apply for adjournment of hearing. Despite this, the matter was adjourned to January 11, 1999 and thereafter to February 1, 1999 and subsequently on February 16, 1999. 6. On behalf of the petitioner Mr.D.C.Surana , Chartered Accountant appeared for personal hearing and submitted written arguments. It was submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as wife of Mr.Foman. She has no relation with said Mr.Foman and consequently she cannot be treated as Affected Person. Thus there was no occasion for the authorities to issue any notice to her. On merits it was submitted that she is qualified beautician holding diploma in hairstyle & beauty culture and that she was doing that job since 1973. She purchased the said flat somewhere in the year 1975 for sum of Rs.36,251/-. The said amount was paid to the builder M/s.Horizon Construction Company out of her accumulated savings and out of her current income from the business of beautician. 7. By judgment and order dated February 25, 1999 the competent authority by its exhaustive judgment considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It came to the conclusion that the petitioner claimed to be a wife of Mr.Foman. It is only after engaging Mr.D.C.Surana & Associates, as Chartered Accountants, she changed her stand and started contending that she is no way related to said Mr.Foman. The competent authority considered the income derived by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that she has not proved satisfactorily that she purchased the said flat in the year 1975 from her own independent income. It also recorded the finding that the money invested in acquiring the flat could be attributed to the illegal income of her husband Mr.Foman. In the result the competent authority passed an order of forfeiture of the said flat free from all the encumbrances under Section 7 of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred appeal under section 12(4) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi. By a detailed judgment and order dated January 18, 2000 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has impugned these orders in the present petition. 9. Mr.Ashwin Shete, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are mis-conceived. The petitioner cannot be considered as an Affected Person as contemplated under Section 2 (2) (c) of the Act, as she is not wife of said Mr.Foman. It was further submitted that she was gainfully employed and as a leading heroin in the production of film Seeta, Geeta Aur Reeta, she was paid Rs.35,000/- on January 5, 1975 by Bahar Milan Productions. 10.After exhaustively considering the material on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the relevant period is of 1975 when the said flat was acquired. At that time the marital status of the petitioner was relevant. By order dated July 8, 1999 the Tribunal called upon the petitioner to produce her title deed. However she did not produce the said title deed and the Tribunal drew adverse inference against the petitioner. The Tribunal also considered the consistent stand taken by the petitioner earlier to the effect that she is wife of said Mr.Foman. The Tribunal did not accept contentions raised by the petitioner that as a leading heroin she received Rs.35,000/- on January 5, 1975 as she had never taken such a plea in the past. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the said flat was acquired out of the funds provided by the detenue Mr.Foman out of his illegal earnings and that the husband of the petitioner was detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA, which was neither set aside by the Advisory Board nor by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 11.We do not find merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The authorities below have concurrently recorded finding of fact that the said flat was acquired in the year 1975 and at the relevant time her marital status was that she was the wife of Mr.Foman. The authorities below also recorded finding of fact that she had no independent source of income for acquiring the said flat and that the said flat was acquired out of the funds provided by Mr.Foman out of his illegal earnings. We do not find any good reason to take a different view in the matter. On the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the authorities below are perverse or that the said orders suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. We are more than satisfied that the orders impugned in the present petition are based on the material on record. In the result, petition fails. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rules is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)