SAFEMA service by affixture and refusal to accept notice can amount to valid service when statutory modes are exhausted.

Under SAFEMA, service of notices and orders is governed by section 22, and the CPC Order V procedure does not apply. The Court accepted that repeated service s, endorsements showing avoidance or refusal, and affixture after unsuccessful service under section 22(a) satisfied the statutory mode under section 22(b). Refusal to accept the personal hearing notice was treated as effective service. Objections to the affixture witness and other factual challenges not supported by the Tribunal record were rejected, and no jurisdictional infirmity was shown in the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders of the competent authority and the Tribunal under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 were duly served and whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal could be condoned; and whether any jurisdictional infirmity was made out in the writ petitions.

Analysis: The service provisions under section 22 of the SAFEMA were applied. The Court held that the procedure under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not applicable to service of notices and orders under the SAFEMA. It accepted the Tribunal's finding that repeated attempts were made to serve the petitioners, that the notices and orders were returned with endorsements showing avoidance or refusal, and that service by affixture was carried out in accordance with section 22(b) when service under section 22(a) could not be effected. The Court also treated refusal to accept service of the personal hearing notice as constituting service. The challenge to the witness of affixture and the attempt to raise factual objections not established on the Tribunal record were rejected. The Court further held that the plea of lack of jurisdiction was neither properly demonstrated nor fit for consideration in the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The service was valid, the refusal to accept notices amounted to service, no jurisdictional defect was shown, and the writ petitions failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory mode of service under SAFEMA is exhausted, service by affixture is valid if carried out in the manner contemplated by section 22, and deliberate refusal to receive notice amounts to effective service.

---