D. P. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner above named has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned Notice dated 24/11/1998 issued by respondent no. 1 u/s. 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, "the said Act" ). The petitioner has also challenged an order of detention against one Jayantilal Maneklal Soni which has been made basis for issuing Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act. ( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the petitioner was detained under the COFEPOSA Act. His order of detention was revoked. He had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of his detention and the Notice issued under the said Act. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court and the order of detention as well as the Notice under the said Act, both were quashed and set aside. The first respondent had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Honble the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, Notice was issued to the petitioner u/s. 6 of the said Act and the said Notice is being challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the present petition. 2. 1 the petitioner has mainly contended that when the earlier order and Notice was set aside, there was no question of issuing a fresh Notice to the petitioner. It has also been contended that it is not legal to say that the petitioner is an associate of one Jayantilal Maneklal Soni. That in view of the earlier stand taken by the respondents in the earlier petition, it is not now open to respondent no. 1 to come with an allegation that the petitioner is involved in the aforesaid activity with one Jayantilal Maneklal Soni. It has also been contended that the petitioner was brought within the ambit of SAFEMA Act on the same grounds on which Jayantilal Maneklal Soni was detained and that the petitioner was released from detention and SAFEMA Notice was quashed and set aside. That, therefore, now respondent no. 1 cannot be permitted to plead that the petitioner is an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni. That, therefore, the fresh Notice issued on an allegation that the petitioner was an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni, is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 2. That, therefore, now respondent no. 1 cannot be permitted to plead that the petitioner is an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni. That, therefore, the fresh Notice issued on an allegation that the petitioner was an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni, is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 2. 2 the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the Notice issued u/s. 6 of the said Act by respondent no. 1 be quashed and set aside and the order of detention against Jayantilal Maneklal Soni may also be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the petition Rule was issued and in response to the service of notice of Rule Mr. Manish Kazi learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. M R Bhatt learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Mr. A D Oza learned G. P. has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. ( 4 ) IT is not much in dispute that the main ground attaching Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act is that the petitioner has been wrongly shown to be an associate of J. M. Soni, and therefore, the Notice u/s. 6 may be held to be illegal. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the competent authority has argued at length that the petition is not maintainable, as only a Notice has been issued u/s. 6 of the said Act and that further proceedings will be undertaken on receipt of the reply of the petitioner and if ultimately, it is found that no action is required to be taken, then naturally, no action would be taken against the petitioner. ( 5 ) NOW, it is a fact that when the very basis of the Notice has been challenged, then in that case, it could not be said that the petition is a premature one. On this point, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 25/07/02 in S. C. A. No. 11079/2000 and 11080/2000. There also it was contended that the petition at the show cause stage was not maintainable. ( 6 ) THE said argument was negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision. On this point, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 25/07/02 in S. C. A. No. 11079/2000 and 11080/2000. There also it was contended that the petition at the show cause stage was not maintainable. ( 6 ) THE said argument was negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision. While so doing this Court has observed in para 13 that the element of malice in law is also piping out from the totality of facts and circumstances and after perusal of a number of decisions, the Court felt that when the revenue authorities have tried to act in absence of bonafide or where an element of lack of bonafide is apparent or is presumable, then the Courts have felt no hesitation, even in quashing the Notice or in terminating the proceedings pending with such revenue authorities. 6. 1 in support of the said observation, this Court had dealt with a decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and Anr.) reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 . 6. 2 the learned Judge of this Court had also dealt with a decision in the case of barium Chemicals Ltd. V/s. Company Law Board and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 295 in support of the said observation and finding. ( 7 ) IN short, when the basis for issuing a Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act has been challenged and when the challenge can be made successfully, then in that event, it would be open to this Court to decide the issue as to the legality and validity of the Notice, even if it is at the stage of Notice. It would, therefore, not be necessary to direct the petitioner to succumb to the jurisdiction of the first respondent, to file appropriate reply to the show cause notice u/s. 6 of the said Act and then to obtain a decision from the said authority. ( 8 ) IN the present case, we find that the petitioner has come out with a case that in the past the very property was involved in earlier proceedings. There, it was observed that the petitioner had acquired it illegally and therefore, the action u/s. 6 of the said Act was required to be initiated against the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN the present case, we find that the petitioner has come out with a case that in the past the very property was involved in earlier proceedings. There, it was observed that the petitioner had acquired it illegally and therefore, the action u/s. 6 of the said Act was required to be initiated against the petitioner. ( 9 ) WHEN the petitioner had filed an earlier petition successfully and when the Honble the Supreme Court had also upheld the decision of this Court, it was clear that the petitioner was not found to have been involved in acquisition of properties illegally. ( 10 ) NOW, the first respondent has been contemplating to allege that one Jayantilal Maneklal Soni had acquired properties in the name of the petitioner illegally and that the petitioner was a close associate of the said person and therefore, was required to be dealt with u/s. 6 and 7 of the said Act. ( 11 ) THIS means that two different stands have been taken by the first respondent at two different stages. The first respondent appears to have failed in proving the allegation in the earlier matter and therefore, the petition of the petitioner was allowed and even the S. L. P. of respondent no. 1 came to be turned down. ( 12 ) ON seeing the failure in the earlier proceeding, the first respondent has come out with a case that the petitioner is an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni and that Jayantilal Maneklal Soni had acquired properties illegally and that they simply stand in the name of the petitioner as a "benamidar". Considering the earlier stand taken by the first respondent in the earlier petition and considering the new case set out by the first respondent in the show cause notice, it has to be accepted that the Department cannot go on changing its stand, and therefore, it could not be said that there was justification on the part of the first respondent for issuing Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act. ( 13 ) THE learned advocate for the first respondent has contended that there are some materials on record from which it can be gathered that the petitioner was an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni and that Jayantilal Maneklal Soni has illegally acquired certain properties in the name of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is required to be dealt with u/s. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA. In order to support the said argument, the learned advocate has drawn my attention to the contents of Notice issued u/s. 6 (1) of the said Act. Even, on a bare look at the contents, it is clear that its contents are contradictory to the earlier stand taken by the first respondent against the petitioner. The said matter was dealt with by this Court as well as by the Honble the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, when the said proceeding has been terminated in favour of the petitioner, the first respondent cannot come out with a new case that the petitioner is an associate of Jayantilal Maneklal Soni and that Jayantilal Maneklal Soni has acquired certain properties illegally in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is simply a "benamidar" in respect of the said properties. ( 14 ) IT is not much in dispute that the properties involved in the present petition and the properties involved in the earlier petition filed by the present petitioner are not similar. As said above, the said Notice was challenged in S. C. A. No. 5684/1985 and there the said Notice was struck down by this Court by order dated 29/04/83. ( 15 ) IT is required to be considered that the subject matter of the Notice is very old and it has not been in dispute that the present proceeding u/s. 6 of the said Act have been initiated about 20 years after the date of first issuance of the Notice. Again, there is an inordinate delay in initiating the new proceeding against the petitioner. Thus, inordinate delay has not been explained to any extent. When there is an unreasonable and inordinate delay in initiating a proceeding and when the delay has not been explained to any extent, then in that event, such a delay would prejudicially affect the interest of the party against whom such a Notice has been issued. Thus, inordinate delay has not been explained to any extent. When there is an unreasonable and inordinate delay in initiating a proceeding and when the delay has not been explained to any extent, then in that event, such a delay would prejudicially affect the interest of the party against whom such a Notice has been issued. Hence, the party concerned may not be in a position to make effective representation for its defence before the concerned authority and in absence of any material their case may fail also. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the delay would certainly come in the way of the first respondent in issuing Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act. While deciding the above matter, i. e. S. C. A. No. 11079/2000 and 11080/2000, this Court had also observed that it would not be permissible in law on the part of the respondent authorities to change the nexus and go on issuing successive Notices. In the present case, we find that no fresh reason has been assigned as to why the first respondent has issued a fresh Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act to the petitioner. ( 17 ) IT is also required to be considered that first respondent had an occasion to pass an order on 26/08/92 which shows that the proceedings initiated u/s. 6 (1) of the said Act were dropped. So far the earlier order is concerned, the Govt. of Gujarat had an occasion to pass an order dated 11/08/83. On going through the said order, it can be gathered that it is stated in it that in accordance with the provisions contained in section 10 of the COFEPOSA, 1974, detention order dated 18/10/82 passed under the COFEPOSA in respect of J. M. Soni shall not remain in force beyond 14/08/83 and therefore, the said detenu be released from detention on 14/08/83. This means that the detention order against the detenu was dropped by order dated 11/08/83 by the State Government and the Notice issued u/s. 6 (1) to the said detenu was also dropped by order dated 26/08/92. In that view of the matter, it is apparently clear that fresh Notice issued u/s. 6 of the said Act to the present petitioner cannot be held to be legal and valid and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. In that view of the matter, it is apparently clear that fresh Notice issued u/s. 6 of the said Act to the present petitioner cannot be held to be legal and valid and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 18 ) IT is required to be considered here that the petitioner has submitted a copy of the judgment of this Court dated 28 and 29/04/93 in S. C. A. 449/1991 with S. C. No. 5900/1991 and 5684/1985. On going through the said judgment, it can be gathered from page 16 that a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners (the petitioner herein was petitioner no. 1 therein) that the first order of detention dated 21/07/82 was revoked by the State Government on 18/10/82 and on the same day a fresh order of detention was passed. It was also submitted that the revocation was u/s. 11 (1) (a) of the COFEPOSA. However, it was observed that the State Government could not pass an order revoking the earlier order in exercise of powers u/s. 11. However, it was observed that such power could be exercised in view of the provisions made in section 21 of the General Clauses Act which provides that an authority passing an order has a power to cancel or revoke the said order. ( 19 ) A contention was raised in the said matter that a fresh order on the same facts could be passed against the present petitioner. The said contention was negatived by this Court and the pertinent observations can be gathered at page 20 and 21. On the same analogy, it can be observed here that when an order was revoked or when it was quashed and set aside, a fresh order could not have been passed by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, applying the principle of analogy to this case, it can be gathered that the subsequent detention order against Jayantilal Maneklal Soni, will also be required to be set at naught by this Court. ( 20 ) IN above view of the matter, it is clear that the Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act is required to be quashed and set aside. Same way, the order of detention against Jayantilal Maneklal Soni referred to hereinabove, is also required to be quashed and set aside. ( 20 ) IN above view of the matter, it is clear that the Notice u/s. 6 of the said Act is required to be quashed and set aside. Same way, the order of detention against Jayantilal Maneklal Soni referred to hereinabove, is also required to be quashed and set aside. This is partly in view of the fact that the contentions of the petitioner in this petition have not been replied by the respondents nor they have been explained by them. ( 21 ) THE first respondent has submitted an affidavit at page 82 stating that there was a nexus between the petitioner and Jayantilal Maneklal Soni as said earlier. Therefore, a fresh case of nexus is sought to be made out between the petitioner and J. M. Soni. As said earlier, it would not be open to the first respondent to change the case of nexus and when it is found that the first respondent could not change the case of nexus, then in that event, the contention raised in the said affidavit has to be negatived. ( 22 ) IN above view of the matter, the case pleaded in the said affidavit-in-reply has not been substantiated by any material and consequently, it would be necessary for this Court even to direct the first respondent to direct the Income Tax Department to release the said silver / ornaments in favour of the petitioner. ( 23 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. (I) the impugned Notice Annexure e dated 24/11/1998 issued by respondent no. 1 u/s. 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is quashed and set aside. (II) the order of detention against Jayantilal Maneklal Soni No. dated 18/10/1982 directing his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. (III) it is hereby declared that the action on the part of respondent no. 2 herein and the subordinate of respondent no. 2 in not releasing the silver / ornaments is illegal, and therefore, the second respondent is prevented from retaining the said silver and ornaments which are directed to be returned to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no orders as to costs. Direct service permitted. .