SAFEMA applicability and maintainability of later writ challenge turned on revocation source and prior infructuous disposal.

SAFEMA did not apply where detention was revoked by the Central Government under its general revocation power, because the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) operated only when revocation was based on the Advisory Board's report or before such reference. The Court held that a concession could not expand the statute and that the High Court was wrong to treat the proviso as attracted. It also held that disposal of an earlier writ petition as infructuous was not an adjudication on validity, so a later writ petition challenging the detention order remained maintainable. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the detention orders' legality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 applied when the detention order had been revoked by the Central Government under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and not on the report of the Advisory Board under Section 8 of that Act. (ii) Whether a subsequent writ petition challenging the detention order was maintainable after an earlier writ petition had been disposed of as infructuous.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 applied when the detention order had been revoked by the Central Government under Section 11(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and not on the report of the Advisory Board under Section 8 of that Act.

Analysis: The application of SAFEMA depended upon the detention order falling within the statutory conditions in Section 2(2)(b). The proviso operated only where revocation occurred on the report of the Advisory Board, before receipt of that report, or before reference to the Advisory Board, in cases where Sections 9 and 12A did not apply. Revocation under Section 11(1)(b) was a distinct power of the Central Government and was not a revocation on the Advisory Board's report. Since the revocation in the present case was under Section 11(1)(b), none of the contingencies in the proviso were satisfied. A concession to the contrary could not control the statute.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA did not apply, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent writ petition challenging the detention order was maintainable after an earlier writ petition had been disposed of as infructuous.

Analysis: The earlier disposal of a writ petition as infructuous did not amount to an adjudication on the legality of the detention order. A later writ petition could therefore be entertained to examine the detention order on merits, particularly where consequences under SAFEMA flowed from that detention. The Court accepted the view that the legality of the detention order had not been finally decided earlier and required fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The subsequent writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was set aside in part, the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication on the legality and validity of the detention orders, and interim protection was directed in respect of the properties pending disposal of the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory applicability cannot be defeated by an erroneous concession, and a revocation of detention under the general revocation power of the detaining authority is not equivalent to revocation on the Advisory Board's report for the purpose of triggering the SAFEMA proviso; further, a prior disposal of a writ petition as infructuous does not bar a later challenge on merits.

---