SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The appeal is utterly unmeritorious appeal filed more in hope than anything else.
(2.) The writ petitioner-appellant appears to have been an associate of a detenu charged under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act , 1974. In such capacity as an associate of a COFEPOSA detenu, the writ petitioner received a notice of forfeiture under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
(3.) By the judgment and order impugned dated July 23, 2015, the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition by referring to several Supreme Court decisions, including those reported at AIR 1994 SC 2179 ( Attorney General v. Amratlal Prajivandas ) and AIR 2003 SC 427 ( Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of India ). Though the grounds of challenge fashioned by the writ petitioner are not discernible from the judgment impugned, which primarily contains a discussion on some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it does not appear that the challenge to the order of the appropriate authority under the 1976 Act was either on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice or of crass unreasonableness, save to the extent that the writ petitioner was not either a COFEPOSA detenu or any associate of a COFEPOSA detenu for the notice of forfeiture to be issued to the writ petitioner.;