Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—The petitioners have instituted the present petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 competent authority dated 31.05.2002 produced at Annexure “E” to the petition which is confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2005 produced at Annexure “F” to the petition and for a declaration that none of the properties mentioned in the said order are illegally acquired properties. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the Petitioner No. 1 and two are the husband and wife respectively. The Petitioner No. 1 Durlabji Narsibhai Jogia came to be detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA” for short) by the State Government vide order dated 21.01.1992 which was confirmed by the Advisory Board on 06.04.1992 and as such on completion of the period of detention, the Petitioner No. 1 was released. The case against the Petitioner No. 1 as reflected in the grounds of detention was that when he was intercepted and checked by the Customs Officers on 31.07.1991, upon search gold biscuits worth Rs. 4,80,000/- were recovered from the pocket of the Petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, the Customs Officers under the reasonable belief that these gold biscuits were smuggled goods placed the same under seizure as they were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. 4,80,000/- were recovered from the pocket of the Petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, the Customs Officers under the reasonable belief that these gold biscuits were smuggled goods placed the same under seizure as they were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Subsequently, on 18.09.2000 a show-cause notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 (“SAFEMA” for short) produced at Annexure “A” to the petition was issued to the petitioners and their relatives by the competent authority as the Petitioner No. 1’s case was covered under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA while the Petitioner No. 2 being his wife was covered under Section 2(2)© thereof, calling upon them to indicate the source of their income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which the following properties were acquired by them : (i) ‘Chandanvilla’ at Diwanpara Sheri No. 1, Rajkot stated to have been held by the Petitioner No. 1 alongwith Shri Tulsidas Raju N. Jogia, Shri Narsibhai Vasanji Jogia and Smt. Parvatiben N. Jogia purchased during 1995 valued at Rs. 8,00,000/-. (ii) A shop in the cellar of Raj Shilip Complex, Ghandnirang, Rajkot, purchased in the year 1998 valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-. It was alleged in the said notice that the family of the petitioners consisted of 13 members and that their income as per the returns of income filed by them for the years 1972-73 to 1977-78 and 1981-82 to 1990-91 were not sufficient to meet the household expenses and they were called upon to show-cause as to why the said properties should not be forfeited under Section 7 of the Act as they are illegally acquired properties. 3. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, the petitioners vide reply dated 12.10.2000 produced at Annexure “B” to the petition denied all the allegations made therein and produced documentary evidence like sale-deeds, income-tax returns. The petitioners have also submitted details regarding the acquisition of the properties and the transactions, assessment orders passed by the income-tax authorities, confirmation of the parties who have given loans vide letters dated 21.05.2001 and 17.09.2001 copies whereof are produced at Annexures “C” and “D” respectively. The petitioners have also submitted details regarding the acquisition of the properties and the transactions, assessment orders passed by the income-tax authorities, confirmation of the parties who have given loans vide letters dated 21.05.2001 and 17.09.2001 copies whereof are produced at Annexures “C” and “D” respectively. According to the petitioners, in spite of their having produced all material to show that the properties were legally acquired the competent authority passed an order dated 31.05.2002 produced at Annexure “E” to the petition forfeiting the aforesaid two properties as mentioned in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the Respondent No. 1 Appellate Tribunal, who by his order dated 01.02.2006 dismissed both the appeals by a common order and confirmed the order passed by the competent authority, giving rise to the present. Special Civil Application. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the reasons recorded by the competent authority along with the show-cause notice. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala has mainly confined his arguments on four points — (i) that the show-cause notice is not as per Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA Act since it does not disclose the link between the property sought to be forfeited and the money of the convict-detenu (Petitioner No. 1), (ii) that there is no proof to show that the property in question has been acquired by undertaking prohibited activities and as such provisions of Section 3(1)© of SAFEMA does not apply, (iii) that the Petitioner No. 1 was detained under COFEPOSA by order dated 25.01.1990 while the authority has initiated proceedings under SAFEMA on 18.09.2000 i.e. after a long delay of over 8 years which has remained unexplained, and therefore, the order passed by the competent authority as also the Appellate Tribunal is bad in law and requires to be quashed and set aside, and (iv) that the petitioners were income-tax assesses and returns under the income-tax laws as well as books of accounts have been filed/produced by them which were accepted by the income-tax authorities, and thereby, the petitioners have successfully proved before the competent authority that out of their legal source of income, the properties sought to be forfeited by the respondent-authorities were acquired by them. 6. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. 6. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Hriday Buch on the other hand has supported the impugned orders passed by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority as also the issuance of the show-cause notice to be in order. 7. To examine the controversy as to whether the show cause notice issued by the competent authority is in consonance with Section 6(1) of SAFEMA, it is important to note that Smt. Banumatiben Durlabhji Jogia is the wife of the Petitioner No. 1 Durlabhji Narsibhai Jogia, and, therefore, it cannot be disputed that she is a person falling within Section 2(2)© of the Act. It can also be not disputed that the Petitioner No. 1 was a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA Act as he was detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA, was subsequently released on completion of the period of detention and the detention order against him was neither revoked nor quashed by any competent Court. I now deem it necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the show-cause notice which reads as under : “Whereas on going through the grounds of detention dated 21.07.1992 issued by the Government of Gujarat, it is seen that AP-1 (Petitioners CGX No. 1) was intercepted and checked by the Customs Officers on 30.07.1991 and during the search ten gold biscuits of foreign origin weighing 10 tolas valued at Rs. 4,80,000/- were recovered from AP-1’s pocket and the same were placed under seizure by the Customs Officers under reasonable belief that they were smuggled and were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. AP-1 had further stated that he had received two foreign marked gold biscuits earlier also i.e. about 15 days prior to the said incident. Hence, it is seen that AP-1 is a habitual smuggler of gold. Whereas investigation revealed that AP-1, AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 hold are residential house property, namely, Chandanvilla at Diwanpara, Sheri No. 1, Rajkot. The residential house property is in the joint names of AP-1, AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 which is a two floor building and has 12 rooms. The said building is constructed on approx. 200 sq.yards of plot area. The said property was stated to have been purchased during the year 1995. The said residential property is constructed at a posh locality of Rajkot City of whose approx. Value would be around Rs. 8,00,000/-. The said building is constructed on approx. 200 sq.yards of plot area. The said property was stated to have been purchased during the year 1995. The said residential property is constructed at a posh locality of Rajkot City of whose approx. Value would be around Rs. 8,00,000/-. Whereas the investigation further revealed that AP-1 is holding one shop in the cellar of Raj Shilp Complex, Ghadnirang, Rajkot which was stated to have been purchased in the year 1998 and the cost would be around Rs. 3 lacs. Whereas it is seen that AP-1 along with 13 members of his family reside at Rajkot. The details of income returned by AP-1 and the income assessed by the income-tax officer is as under : A.Y. Returned Income Assessed Income 1972-73 Rs. 5,120/- Rs. 5,120/- 1973-74 Rs. 9,040/- Rs. 9,040/- 1974-75 Rs. 8,005/- Rs. 8,005/- 1975-76 Rs. 1 1,718/- Rs. 11,980/- 1976-77 Rs. 1 2,230/- Rs. 1 2,230/- 1977-78 Rs. 11,700/- Rs. 11,700/- 1978-79 Not filed Not filed 1979-80 Not filed Not filed 1980-81 Not filed Not filed 1981-82 Rs. 7,820/- Rs. 7,820/- 1982-83 Rs. 10,270/- Rs. 10,270/- 1983-84 Rs. 11,100/- Rs. 11,100/- 1984-85 Rs. 11,424/- Rs. 11,424/- 1985-86 Rs. 13,720/- Rs. 13,720/- 1986-87 Rs. 17,970/- Rs. 17,970/- 1987-88 Rs. 17,220/- Rs. 17,220/- 1988-89 Rs. 18,200/- Rs. 18,200/- 1989-90 Rs. 26,570/- Rs. 26,570/- 1990-91 Rs. 19710/- Rs. 22,590/- Note : In return of income for A.Y. 1980-81 the assessee went to Bombay in search of business during A.Ys 1978-79 and 1979-80. The above income is not even sufficient to meet the household expenses of a family of 13 members. Hence, AP-1 might be earning from the sources other than that he was declaring to the income-tax. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the investment in the purchase of the properties mentioned above have been acquired from his unknown sources of income and the names of AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 have been entered in property for name sake only. Hence, AP-1 might be earning from the sources other than that he was declaring to the income-tax. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the investment in the purchase of the properties mentioned above have been acquired from his unknown sources of income and the names of AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 have been entered in property for name sake only. Whereas I Maheshwar Prasad, being the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act have on the basis of relevant information and on the basis of material placed before me including the documents, evidencing involvement of AP-1 in smuggling of gold it is seen that AP-1 has made investment in properties in his name and in the names of AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 which are prima facie, unexplainable and disproportionate to their known sources of income, earnings or assets and hence, treated as illegally acquired property within the meaning of Clause © of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act”. 8. Considering these prima facie observations in the notice, there is no doubt that reasons for belief have been explicitly recorded by the competent authority, and, therefore, the notice complies with the requirement of law. I, therefore, do not find infirmity in the same. Indisputably, the aforesaid two properties are held by the Petitioner No. 1 alongwith the Petitioner No. 2 who is the wife of the Petitioner No. 1. Here, in this case, the competent authority while passing the impugned order arrived at a finding that the legal source of income has not been explained by the Petitioner No. 1 and his wife and rightly so as it is the duty of the affected person or the person to whom the notice has been issued to prove that the properties had not been acquired illegally. The competent authority has highlighted many technical and arithmetical errors in maintaining the capital account “and has observed as follows at Paragraphs 22 and 23 thereof : “22. The closing balance of the previous years does not tally with the opening balance of subsequent years. For example, closing balance of S.Y. 2028 is indicated as Rs. 26,221/- and the opening balance of S.Y. 2029 i.e. next year is indicated as Rs. 16,225/-. The closing balance of S.Y. 2029 is indicated as Rs. 26,221/- and the opening balance of S.Y. 2030 i.e. next year, is indicated as Rs. 39,886/-, Rs. For example, closing balance of S.Y. 2028 is indicated as Rs. 26,221/- and the opening balance of S.Y. 2029 i.e. next year is indicated as Rs. 16,225/-. The closing balance of S.Y. 2029 is indicated as Rs. 26,221/- and the opening balance of S.Y. 2030 i.e. next year, is indicated as Rs. 39,886/-, Rs. 28,548/-was shown at the debit side but the same has not been narrated. It is clearly establishes a numerical manipulation just to generate excess balance in the capital account. It is further observed that in the capital account, various expenses were indicated including income under rent, LIC premia etc., which normally is expected to find a place in profit and loss account only. These have been transferred to capital account, it appears to have been generated to prove the legality of the investments for the purchase of the properties. Further, it observed in the capital account, an expense of Mumbai office was indicated which is expected to be adjusted out of the account of Mumbai Office, and not from the Ahmedabad Office. Some entries have been indicated as L.F. No. 10 without specifying the details. Withdrawals made were more than Rs. 20,000/- in specific years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and the LIC premium paid was more than Rs. 31,958/- through capital accounts. No evidence of payment by way of cheque has been indicated. The accounts have been prepared according to his convenience and which is not signed by any qualified Chartered Accountant confirming the accounting standards. It is also further observed that while in the balance-sheet large number of entries have been shown as personal loans from various individuals and that many of them exceed Rs. 20,000/-, they have all been shown as received in cash. The capital and cash balance have been generated from 1970 onwards beginning with an amount of Rs. 5,140/- so as to generate a capital of Rs. 3,30,757/- in 1996-97. No profit and loss account to substantiate the income and expenditure to justify the profit has been enclosed. Though it was stated that the Chandanvilla was purchased for Rs. 3,20,000/- and including the stamp duties etc. it comes to Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 1,19,000/- was paid by the wife of the AP-1, how this amount of Rs. 3,30,757/- in 1996-97. No profit and loss account to substantiate the income and expenditure to justify the profit has been enclosed. Though it was stated that the Chandanvilla was purchased for Rs. 3,20,000/- and including the stamp duties etc. it comes to Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 1,19,000/- was paid by the wife of the AP-1, how this amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- in the account of AP-1 came about, when the sale proceeds from the sale of earlier house jointly owned by the AP-1 alongwith his brother, father and mother amounts only to Rs. 87,500/- has not been explained. In the cash flow accounts also, LIC premia were shown and the repayment/fresh loans were shown as increase and decrease only according to his convenience. It is surprising huge amounts in cash were shown as loans or payments but no interest was charged or paid. How the lenders parted with such an amount without interest for two to five years is not understood having regard to the established commercial transactions. These accounting manipulations all appear to have aimed at establishing the generation of legal money to cover up his illegal source even though in the case of Chandanvilla his contribution by way of manipulating accounts is to the extent of Rs. 1,19,000/-, the balance of the amount on account of his wife has not been explained at all except stating that she filed income-tax returns which appears to be filed only after the receipt of show-cause notice of the earlier years and from gifts from relatives only with a view to indicate source of generation of legal money. Even though the AP-1 claimed to have filed returns to the income-tax department he has not produced any evidence to establish that the said accounts were accepted and returns were finalized by the Income-tax Department. 23. The perusal of the Bank statements indicates that AP-1 has deposited Rs. 1,90,000/-, Rs. 1,01,260/-, Rs. 52,615/- and Rs. 2,02,520/- in cash in the year 1997-98. What is the legal source for generation of these cash amounts, deposited in the Bank has not been explained. Likewise many cash transactions, particularly repayment in 1994 have not been explained at all”. 9. The perusal of the Bank statements indicates that AP-1 has deposited Rs. 1,90,000/-, Rs. 1,01,260/-, Rs. 52,615/- and Rs. 2,02,520/- in cash in the year 1997-98. What is the legal source for generation of these cash amounts, deposited in the Bank has not been explained. Likewise many cash transactions, particularly repayment in 1994 have not been explained at all”. 9. Even the Appellate Authority by a common order passed in the two appeals after having perused the capital accounts as referred to by the learned Chartered Accountant in the synopsis in which the explanation for the discrepancies in the opening and closing balances for Samvat Years 2028, 2029 and 2030 had been given, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Competent Authority are factually correct and held that the appellants have failed to prove their legal sources of income for acquisition of the forfeited properties. The Appellate Authority had considered the certificates of the Government approved valuer and held that that the total value of both the properties in question was Rs. 7 lakhs (Rs. 4,59,000/- for Chandan Villa and Rs. 2,41,000/- for the shop). The Appellate Authority has stated that the Chartered Accountant on behalf of AP-1 has only accepted the legitimacy of Rs. 87,500/- the sale proceeds from the sale of earlier house “Raj Darshan”, as having been used in the purchase of the forfeited properties, while Chandanvilla was purchased at Rs. 3,50,000/- including stamp duty, and therefore, benefit of Section 9 was also not made available to the appellants (Petitioners herein). In short, the appellate authority by a well reasoned common order has agreed with the findings given by the competent authority on all material aspects and came to the conclusion that the properties in question have been illegally acquired by the petitioners. 10. On careful scrutiny of the entire record it is abundantly clear that the closing balance of the previous years produced on record by the petitioners do not tally with the opening balance of the subsequent years as detailed above with a view to generate excess balance in the capital account, income under rent, LIC premia etc. were shown in the capital account instead of in profit and loss account, some entries have been shown as L.F. No. 10 without providing any details, the withdrawals in the specific years 1995-96, and 1996-97 were more than Rs. were shown in the capital account instead of in profit and loss account, some entries have been shown as L.F. No. 10 without providing any details, the withdrawals in the specific years 1995-96, and 1996-97 were more than Rs. 20,000/- and the LIC premium paid was more than Rs. 31,958/-, the balance-sheet shows large number of entries of personal loans from various individuals exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, but no interest is shown to have been paid. Over and above these accounting manipulations, on perusal of the Bank statements it is found that the Petitioner No. 1 had deposited Rs. 1,90,000/-, Rs. 1,01,260/- and Rs. 52,615/- and Rs. 2,02,520/- in cash in the year 1997-98 and the legal sources of these amounts deposited in cash stand unexplained. It is also worth taking note of that even with regard to the purchase of “Chandanvilla” property the Petitioner No. 1 even according to the manipulated accounts contributed only to the extent of Rs. 1,19,000/-, the balance of the amount on account of his wife has not been explained at all as the Petitioner No. 1 has merely stated that his wife had filed income-tax returns, however, the income tax returns appear to have been filed only after the receipt of the show-cause notice of the earlier years. It is interesting to note that even though the Petitioner No. 1 also claimed to have filed returns to the Income-tax Department nothing has been placed on record to show that the returns were finalized by the income tax Department so that the accounts can be proved as having been accepted. Thus, the appellate authority has agreed with the findings given by the competent authority on all material aspects and came to the conclusion that the properties in question were illegally acquired by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the first two points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not well founded and cannot be accepted. 11. In that view of the matter, the first two points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not well founded and cannot be accepted. 11. Turning now to the point raised by the learned Counsel that the competent authority has to mention the nexus or link between the convict detenu and the property which is sought to be forfeited, reference may beneficially be had to the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kesar Devi (Smt.) vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2003 (7) Supreme Court Cases 427, wherein it has been observed in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment that : “In cases were relationship is close and direct no link or nexus has to be indicated in the reasons for belief between the convict or detenu and the property as such an inference can easily be drawn. Under the scheme of the Act there is no requirement on the part of the competent authority to mention or establish any nexus or link between the money of the convict or detenu and the property sought to be forfeited. In fact if such a condition is imposed the very purpose of enacting SAFEMA would be frustrated as in many cases it would be almost impossible to show that the property was purchased or acquired from the money provided by the convict or detenu”. 12. The submission that the petitioners have successfully proved before the competent authority that out of their legal source of income, the properties sought to be forfeited by the respondents authorities were acquired by them also does not merit acceptance for the reason that the competent authority has made a specific statement that though the petitioners have filed income-tax returns, there is nothing to show that these accounts have been finalized and accepted by the income-tax authorities. The appellate authority ahs also agreed with the findings arrived at by the competent authority and held that the appellants have failed to prove their legal source of income for acquisition of the forfeited properties. The appellate authority ahs also agreed with the findings arrived at by the competent authority and held that the appellants have failed to prove their legal source of income for acquisition of the forfeited properties. Mention requires to be made here that even if it is believed that the petitioners have filed income-tax returns and the same are accepted by the authorities, since the accounts, as held by me herein above, are fabricated and there being involvement of the Petitioner No. 1 in smuggling of gold, the investments in the properties in question is proved to be disproportionate to the known source of income, earnings and assets, and, therefore, they are illegally acquired properties. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the decision rendered in the case of (1) P.P. Abdulla & Anr. Vs. The Competent Authority & Ors. Reported in 2006 (14) Scale (sic) and (2) Fatima Mohd. Amin (Smt.) (dead) Through LRs. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2003 (7) SCC 436 to contend that there should exist link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the illegally acquired money of the detenu(s) under COFEPOSA Act, in absence of which, the impugned orders of forfeiture cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. However, in that case, there was no averment in the show-cause notice to the effect that the property acquired by the appellant is a benami property of her son or the same was illegally acquired from her son, and therefore, it was observed that the contents of the said notices even if taken at their face value do not disclose any reason warranting action against the appellant and that no allegation whatsoever has been made to this effect that there exists any link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the illegally acquired money of the detenu(s). The appeals were therefore allowed for the reason that the condition precedent for initiation of the proceedings under SAFEMA did not exist. Here, in the present case, there is a specific allegation in the show-cause notice to the effect that, “The income of the petitioners is not even sufficient to meet the household expenses of a family of 13 members. Hence AP-1 might be earning from the sources other than that he was declaring to the income tax. Here, in the present case, there is a specific allegation in the show-cause notice to the effect that, “The income of the petitioners is not even sufficient to meet the household expenses of a family of 13 members. Hence AP-1 might be earning from the sources other than that he was declaring to the income tax. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the investment in the purchase of the properties mentioned above have been acquired from his unknown sources of income and the names of AP-2, AP-3 and AP-4 have been entered in property for name sake only”. Otherwise also, it is clear from the decision in Kesar Devi’s case (Supra) the relevant portion of which is quoted by me herein above that it is no necessary to establish a link or nexus between the money of the convict or detenu and the property sought to be forfeited in case where the relationship is not remote, as is the case, in the matter on hand. 14. As regards the delay aspect pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the instant case, no doubt the notice came to be issued on 18.09.2000. Though the Petitioner No. 1 was released on 21.01.1993, thereafter enquiries under Section 16 read with Section 18 of the SAFEMA commenced and reports were received from the Income-tax authorities. Before 1995 no properties in the name of the appellants were reported as the Petitioner No. 1 detenu had purchased the properties later in the years 1995 and 1998 and only after the details of these properties were furnished by the Income-tax authorities, the notice could be issued and as such the authority cannot be held responsible for the delay. In the connection, it would be advisable to refer to the decision rendered in the case of Attorney General For India vs. Amratlal Prajivandas, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that persons engaged in smuggling do not keep regular and proper accounts with respect to such activities and very often such persons screen the properties acquired so that they may not be traced. In the nature of things the authorities require time to trace the properties, and therefore, they cannot be found fault with for the delay in issuance of the show-cause notice. In the nature of things the authorities require time to trace the properties, and therefore, they cannot be found fault with for the delay in issuance of the show-cause notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case Mithu Bawa Padiyar vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2003 (1) GLR 129. In that case there were three notices issued and there has been a gap of 17 years from the date of his release from detention and few properties were included in the Show-Cause Notices Nos. 1 and 2 which were decided in June 1999 by passing a forfeiture order under Section 7. After passing this forfeiture order another notice under Section 6(1) was issued on 08.08.2000 in which few properties were included, but the properties for which the 3rd show-cause notice was issued were already in existence at the time of the previous two show-cause notices, and therefore, there was lack of application of mind on the part of the competent authority for not including the properties in the first two show-cause notices and no reason was also assigned by the authority for delay in issuance of the show- cause notice. That is not so, in the present case as explained above. Hence, Mithu Bawa’s case would not be of any assistance to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the aspect of delay. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pressed into service the decisions in the case of : 1. Adishwar Jain vs. Union of India, reported in 2006 (1) Scale 553; 2. Dhaniben Makanbhai Tandelm vs. Competent Authority, (Special Civil Application No. 11007 of 2000 decided on 30.12.2004); 3. Daman Distillery vs. Competent Authority Under SAFEMA, (Special Civil Application No. 11798 of 2002); 4. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Palitana Sugar Mills, (SLP © 1561 of 2002 Decided on 05.12.2002). 15.1. I have gone through these authorities. There is no dispute to the proposition laid down in these authorities, however, since the facts in these cases are on an entirely different footing than the facts of the present case cannot be made applicable and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. 16. 15.1. I have gone through these authorities. There is no dispute to the proposition laid down in these authorities, however, since the facts in these cases are on an entirely different footing than the facts of the present case cannot be made applicable and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. 16. Viewed in the light of the discussion as above, I find that the reasoning adopted and the conclusions arrived at by the competent authority as well as the Appellate Authority are quite legal and proper which do not call for interference at the hands of this Court since, the appellate authority has agreed with the findings arrived at by the competent authority on all material aspects and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner No. 1 is a habitual smuggler of gold and that properties in question have been illegally acquired by the petitioners. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of facts by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority and, therefore, this Court cannot enter into the arena of reappreciation of evidence on record to come to a different conclusion than the one taken by the authorities below. The scope of the powers while dealing with a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and must be confined strictly to the errors apparent on the face of the record. Reappraisal of the evidence on record for finding out the error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible. In this petition no grounds exist which would justify this Court to interfere. No evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that the properties in question were purchased out of licit source of income by the petitioners, and, therefore, the impugned orders as well as the notice cannot be quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, the petition fails and is rejected. No costs. Further orders : At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala has prayed for stay of the execution and implementation of the order for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach the higher forum. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then. No costs. Further orders : At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala has prayed for stay of the execution and implementation of the order for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach the higher forum. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then. evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that the properties in question were purchased out of licit source of income by the petitioners, and, therefore, the impugned orders as well as the notice cannot be quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, the petition fails and is rejected. No costs. Further orders : At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala has prayed for stay of the execution and implementation of the order for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach the higher forum. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.