8. wp 423-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 423 OF 2011 Union of India .. Petitioner Vs HPS Shergill Iqbal Kaur .. Respondent Mr. Kiran Kandpile with Ms. Revati Dere for the Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11th MARCH, 2011. PER COURT: 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 9th June 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property, New Delhi, quashing and setting aside the order impugned in the said proceedings before the Tribunal, dated 3rd November 2009 by which the Government had ordered forfeiture of the property of detenu. The Tribunal at paragraph 2 had stated that by order dated 12th November 2009, the order of detention came to be revoked and consequently the order of forfeiture could not stand in law. The Tribunal has given adequate reasons. A plea on behalf of the present petitioner that the order of revocation was passed subsequent to the order of forfeiture was turned down by the 1 8. wp 423-11.doc Tribunal. Similarly, reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2004 (Smt. Padma Nirmal Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors) was distinguished by the Tribunal. The facts of the said decided case are reproduced by the Tribunal at paragraph 5. We have perused the paragraph 5 and the facts of the decided case are certainly different and therefore the ratio therein would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 2. Undisputedly, though the order of forfeiture of property was passed prior to revocation order, since the revocation order revoked the detention of the affected persons, the order directing forfeiture of their property, which can only stand in the face of the valid detention order, has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and we have perused the evidence recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and upon such perusal, we do not find that any ground is carved out for interference of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 4. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. This petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 2 8. wp 423-11.doc 3