PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: GHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI

PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
GHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1994

BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:
1995 SCC  (1)    40      JT 1994 (6)    370
1994 SCALE  (4)374

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.   The respondent Ghamandiram Kewalji Gowani was  detained under  Conservation  of Foreign Exchange and  Prevention  of Smuggling   Activities    Act  (hereinafter  referred  to as COFEPOSA)  in  1974.  The  said  order of  detention     was challenged by the son of the detenu Shri Tej Raj before  the Bombay    High  Court  and after considering  the  grounds  of detention, the Bombay High Court quashed the detention order by  judgment dated 1-11-1974.  Sometime in June 1975  during the  period  of emergency declared under  the  Constitution, another      detention  order  was     passed     against  the    said Ghamandiram.  The second detention order was also challenged in  the Bombay High Court.  By an interim order dated  10-3- 1976,  the  Bombay  High  Court held  that  the     detenu     was
entitled  to  challenge the grounds for  detention  and  the petition presented before the High Court for such  challenge was  maintainable.  On the revocation of the emergency, the detenu was  released  but the challenge  to  the  detention
order, was pursued and ultimately by the judgment and  order dated 23-2-1981, the Bombay High Court set aside and quashed the second detention order. + From the Judgment and Order dated 23-2-1981 of the  Bombay High Court in Crl.  Appeal No. 1320 of 1975.

2.The  instant    appeal arises out of such  judgment  of  the Bombay    High  court  dated  23-2-1981  quashing  the  second detention  order.  During the pendency of this    appeal,  the respondent Ghamandiram died on 2-2-1983.  No application for
substitution  of the heirs of the legal  representatives  of the said deceased respondent Ghamandiram was made within the period  of  limitation. No application  for  setting  aside abatement after condonation of delay has also been made.  It may  be     stated     here  that in view of    the  said  order  of detention  passed  against Ghamandiram, three  notices  were issued, one against the deceased Ghamandiram and two against two  sons  of  deceased under Section  6  of  Smugglers and Foreign  Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property)  Act
(hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA).  It has been  contended in  the  application for substitution that since  the  other appeals  have also been preferred against quashing  of such notices issued under SAFEMA to the sons of Ghamandiram  and in  such  appeals, the question of the    validity  of  second detention  order also arises for determination, there is  no question of abatement of the instant appeal because in other appeals some  of the heirs of Ghamandiram  are  already  on record.Such contention has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel who has entered appearance for the sons of Ghamandiram  in  the other appeals by contending  that    they cannot be  held  to be on record of  the  appeal  preferred against Ghamandiram  in the matter  of  quashing  detention order  for  allowing the application for  substitution made long after the period of limitation.  It may be stated here that it is not the case of the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the death of Ghamandiram because such fact of  death  was    made  known  and  in  the  application  for substitution  it has been stated that such  application  was
not made  earlier  because  in the  connected  appeals, the heirs of Ghamandiram were already on record.

3. The learned   counsel   opposing  the prayer  for substitution has contended that the other appeals  preferred against some  of the heirs of Ghamandiram  are     independent appeals and they arise out of a different cause of  action.
The notices under SAFEMA to sons of Ghamandiram were  issued not in the capacity of their being heirs of Ghamandiram  and holding the properties of Ghamandiram but on the  basis  of their  being close relations of the detenu  under  COFEPOSA, within the meaning of SAFEMA, the properties owned by    them
were  also liable to be confiscated under the provisions  of SAFEMA. In such circumstances, learned counsel opposing the application  for substitution contends that the question  of doctrine  of presentation of the estate of a deceased  party
as  sought  to be raised in support of the  application for substitution does  not  arise   and  the  application for substitution   being   hopelessly  time-barred  should  be
dismissed.

4.The  learned  counsel for the appellant  has,  however, relied upon the decision of this Court in Mahabir Prasad  v. Jage  Ram 1 (1971) 1 SCC 265 :1971) 3 SCR 301 for  contending  that  since  in  the  connected appeals,  the heirs of Ghamandiram were already on  record, there was no question of abatement of this appeal. We are, however, unable to accept such contention.  In the said decision The question  of abatement of a proceeding was considered  where in the same proceeding, one of the heirs of a deceased party was already on record.  The said decision does not relate to abatement of a different proceeding which is independent  of the other proceedings where an heir in his personal capacity is a party.  In the aforesaid circumstances, the application for  substitution which is otherwise hopelessly time-barred is  rejected’. Consequently,    this appeal  abates  and  is therefore dismissed. CA Nos. 928 and 1198 of 1991
5.   List  the    matters on 8-11-1994 as prayed    for  by     the
learned counsel for the parties.