Natural justice and freezing orders under the NDPS Act: prior notice was unnecessary, and later hearing cured the challenge.

A freezing order under section 68F of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was treated as an ad interim measure pending inquiry, so prior notice was not required before the initial order. The affected party was later given a show-cause notice before confirmation, which provided an opportunity to object. Because the party did not attend the hearing on the fixed date and its belated reply did not contest the merits of confirmation, the article notes that there was no denial of natural justice. The confirmation order did not finally conclude the statutory proceedings, and the challenge based on violation of natural justice failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the freezing order and its confirmation under section 68F of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were invalid for want of notice and opportunity of hearing, amounting to violation of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The freezing order was treated as an ad interim measure pending further inquiry, for which the statute did not require prior notice before the initial order. The affected party was thereafter issued a show-cause notice before confirmation of the order, thereby affording an opportunity to object. Since the party did not avail the hearing on the date fixed and the belated reply did not raise merits against confirmation, there was no denial of natural justice. The subsequent inquiry under the statute remained open and the confirmation order did not finally conclude the proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice failed, and the order confirming the freezing of the bank account was upheld.

---