Court rules detention order revoked under SAFEMA, citing Section 2(2)(b) proviso. Orders quashed, petition allowed.

The court held that the revocation of the detention order fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, excluding its operation. Consequently, the orders under SAFEMA were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
2. Validity of the proceedings and orders under SAFEMA.
3. Impact of the revocation of the detention order on SAFEMA applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA:
The petitioner sought directions to call for records relevant to the detention order dated 12.07.1975 under COFEPOSA. The order was issued but never executed, and the detainee was never detained. The respondents later revealed that the detention order had been revoked on 21.03.1977, and the file pertaining to the detention order was untraceable. The court noted that the detention order was made during the Emergency period (25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977) and was revoked on the same day the Emergency ended.

2. Validity of the proceedings and orders under SAFEMA:
The petitioner also challenged the proceedings initiated and orders made under SAFEMA. The competent authority under SAFEMA issued a notice to Shri H.K. Sarin, asking him to disclose his source of income for the properties listed. Despite his representations, an order forfeiting several properties was issued on 05.08.1998. The petitioner argued that since the detention order was never executed, the consequential action under SAFEMA was unsustainable. The respondents contended that the forfeiture orders were valid as they were preceded by a show cause notice.

3. Impact of the revocation of the detention order on SAFEMA applicability:
The petitioner contended that the revocation of the detention order under Section 12A of COFEPOSA meant that proceedings under SAFEMA could not have been initiated. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 2 of SAFEMA and Sections 9, 11, and 12A of COFEPOSA. It was highlighted that detention orders under Section 12A were made under extraordinary circumstances during the Emergency, overriding other statutory safeguards. The court noted that the detention order in question was made under Section 12A and was revoked by operation of law upon the cessation of the Emergency. The court concluded that the revocation of the detention order fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, excluding its operation.

Conclusion:
The court held that the revocation of the detention order clearly fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA, thus excluding the exercise of jurisdiction under SAFEMA. Consequently, the orders of the competent and appellate authority under SAFEMA were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

---