Constructive res judicata bars reopening final forfeiture challenges; Article 14 permits reasonable classification under narcotics forfeiture law.

Writ proceedings cannot be used to reopen forfeiture challenges that had already attained finality, especially where the relevant constitutional objections were not raised before the competent authority, appellate authority, or in the earlier writ petition. The document also explains that the pre-amendment proviso to Section 68C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the legislature may make reasonable classifications based on the nature of the offence and the stage of proceedings, and a later limitation period does not by itself establish arbitrariness. The principle of constructive res judicata applies in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the forfeiture proceedings and the amended proviso could be reopened in writ proceedings; (ii) whether the pre-amendment proviso to Section 68C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the forfeiture proceedings and the amended proviso could be reopened in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The earlier writ proceedings had attained finality insofar as the confiscation of the flats and parking space was concerned. The same constitutional objections were not raised before the competent authority, the appellate authority, or in the earlier writ petition. The later amendment to the proviso did not create a fresh cause of action for reopening concluded proceedings. The principle of constructive res judicata applies to writ proceedings as well.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred and could not be reopened.

Issue (ii): whether the pre-amendment proviso to Section 68C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme dealt with illegal property linked to narcotic trafficking, an area in which the legislature was entitled to adopt strict measures and make classifications based on the nature of the offence and the stage at which proceedings were initiated. A law is not unconstitutional merely because it creates an under-inclusive classification. Article 14 permits reasonable classification if it rests on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the legislation. The Court found a valid basis for treating the category governed by the pre-amendment proviso differently and declined to infer arbitrariness merely because a limitation period was later introduced.

Conclusion: The proviso was not shown to be unconstitutional under Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The statutory amendment did not assist the appellant, the constitutional challenge failed, and the forfeiture order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An under-inclusive fiscal or regulatory classification does not violate Article 14 if it has a rational nexus with the statutory object, and final proceedings cannot be reopened in writ jurisdiction by raising objections that were available earlier but not pursued.

---