Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.764 of 2006, a writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking to quash the order dated 23-6-2005, whereunder the property alleged to have been acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, got forfeited in view of Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [for short, the Act], and the learned Single Judge quashed the same and remanded the matter to the second respondent in the writ petition, with a further direction to the give notice to the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners and to hold an enquiry before proceeding further in the matter, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 are the original owners of the property in question, from whom the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners have purchased it, after the initiation of the action under Section 6 of the Act, but however, the respondents 3 and 4, despite service of notice on them, avoided the proceedings, both before the learned Single Judge as well as before this court, in spite of newspaper publication of the notice in The Times of India, dated 28-2-2009, notifying that the matter will be taken up for final hearing today. 3. The undisputed facts are that: Respondents 3 and 4 are treated as 'the persons', within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act, on whom the provisions of the Act are attracted. A detention order dated 25-3-2003 came to be passed against the fourth respondent under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [COFEPOSA], pursuant to which proceeding to forfeit the property acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, as provided under Section 6 of the Act, was initiated on 8-12-2003. An explanation was called from the respondents 3 and 4 by the said notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter on 21-4-2004, the respondents 3 and 4 were served with a second notice to submit their explanation on or before 4-5-2004. An explanation was called from the respondents 3 and 4 by the said notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter on 21-4-2004, the respondents 3 and 4 were served with a second notice to submit their explanation on or before 4-5-2004. On receipt of the second notice dated 21-4-2004, respondents 3 and 4 submitted their explanation on 26-5-2004, wherein the respondents 3 and 4 also sought for personal hearing, on which date the proceeding was adjourned to 18-6-2004 at the request of respondents 3 and 4 and again was adjourned to 15-7-2004 and finally it was heard on 4-10-2004 giving a fair opportunity to the respondents 3 and 4, though they avoided personal hearing. The proceeding was again adjourned to 16-3-2005 and thereafter to 30-3-2005, on which date too, the respondents 3 and 4 remained absent. As a result, summons were served on respondents 3 and 4 on 3-5-2005 through the enforcement directorate, as they continued to remain absent and an order of forfeiture was passed on 23-6-2006 under Section 7(1) of the Act, which was impugned in the writ petition. 4. In the meanwhile, on 10-2-2005, respondents 3 and 4 sold the property in question in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners. The respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners challenged the impugned proceedings of forfeiture of the property on the grounds that they had never been heard before passing the impugned order and that the impugned order dated 23-6-2005 violates the principles of natural justice and that the action of the respondent-authority in this regard is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was further contended by the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that as they are the bona fide purchasers of the property, they are entitled for a reasonable opportunity in compliance with the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order of forfeiture dated 23-6-2005. 5. The appellant-respondents resisted the writ petition, placing reliance on Section 11 of the Act, submitting that the very transaction dated 10-2-2005 selling the property in question in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners is null and void. 6. 5. The appellant-respondents resisted the writ petition, placing reliance on Section 11 of the Act, submitting that the very transaction dated 10-2-2005 selling the property in question in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners is null and void. 6. The learned Single Judge, appreciating the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the second respondent [second appellant herein] with a direction to give notice to the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners, hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 7. We have heard Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellants and Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners. Both have reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge. The respondents 3 and 4, as mentioned above, despite issue of notice through newspaper publication, have remained absent. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners, if at all, are required to be issued with any notice of enquiry, in view of Section 11 of the Act, as admittedly respondents 3 and 4 had sold the property in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners on 10-2-2005 i.e. after the initiation of action under Section 6 of the Act. 9. For convenience, it is apt to refer to the relevant Sections of the Act viz. Sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 11, which read as under: 2. Application – (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the person specified in sub-section (2). 9. For convenience, it is apt to refer to the relevant Sections of the Act viz. Sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 11, which read as under: 2. Application – (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the person specified in sub-section (2). (2) The person referred to in sub-section (1) are the following namely:- (i) who has been convicted under the Sea Customer Act, 1878 (8 of 1878, or the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees; or (ii) who has been convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947), or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), of an offence, the amount or value involved in which exceeds one lakh of rupees; or (iii) who having been convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), or the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), has been convicted subsequently under either of those Acts; or (iv) who having been convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 or 1947), or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), has been convicted subsequently under either of those Acts; (b) Every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974): Provided that – (i) Such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 9 or section 12A of the said Act do no apply, has not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8 of the said Act or before the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board; or (ii) Such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 9 of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of the review under sub-section (3) of section 9, or on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (2) of section 9 of the said Act; or (iii) Such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 12A of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the first review under sub-section (3) of section 9, or on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (6) of section 12A, of that Act; or (iv) Such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) every person who is a relative of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b); (d) every associate person referred to in clause (a) or clauses (b); (e) any holder (hereafter in this clause referred to as the present holder) of any property which was at any time previously held by a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unless the present holder or, as the case may be, any one who held such property after such person and before the present holder, is or was a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration. Explanation 1 – For the purposes of sub-clause (1) of clause (a), the value of any goods in relation to which a person has been convicted of an offence shall be the wholesale price of the goods in the ordinary course of trade in India as on the date of the commission of the offence. Explanation 2 – For the purposes of clause (c) "relative", in relation to a person, means – (i) spouse of the person; (ii) brother or sister of the person; (iii) brother or sister of the spouse of the person; (iv) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the person; (v) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the person; (vi) spouse of a person referred to in clause (ii), clauses (iii) clause (iv) or clauses (v); (vii) any lineal descendant of a person referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii); Explanation 3 – For the purposes of clause (d), "associate", in relation to a person, means – (i) any individual who had been or is residing in the residential premises (including outhouses) of such person; (ii) any individual who had been or is managing the affairs or keeping the accounts of such person; (iii) any association of persons, body of individuals, partnership firm, or private company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), of which such person had been or is a member, partner or director; (iv) any individual who had been or is a member, partner or director of an association of person, body of individuals partnership firm, or private company within the meaning of the Companies when such person had been or is a member, partner or director of such association body, partnership firm or private company; (v) any person who had been or is managing the affairs, or keeping the accounts, of an association of persons, body of individuals partnership firm or private company referred to in clause (iii). (vi) the trustee of any trust, where, - (a) the trust has been created by such person; or (b) the value of the assets contributed by such person (including the value of the assets if any, contributed by him earlier) to the trust amounts, on the date on which the contribution is made, to not less than twenty per cent, of the value of the assets of the trust on that date; (vii) where the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that any properties of such person are held on his behalf by any other person, such other person. Explanation 4 – For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby provided that the question whether any person is a person to whom the provisions of this Act apply may be determined with reference to any facts, circumstances or events (including any conviction or detention) which occurred or took place before the commencement of this Act. 6. Notice of forfeiture – (1) If, having regard to the value of the properties held by any person to whom this act applies, either by himself or through any other person on this behalf, his known sources of income, earnings or assets, any other information or material available to it as a result of action taken under section 18 or otherwise, the authority has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, it may serve a notice upon such person (hereinafter referred to as the person affected) calling upon him within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty days, to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired such property, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties as the case may be should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under this Act. (2) Whereas notice under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any property as being held on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person. 7. (2) Whereas notice under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any property as being held on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person. 7. Forfeiture of property in certain cases – (1) The competent authority may, after considering the explanation, if any, to the show cause notice issued under section 6, and the materials available before it and after giving to the person affected (and in a case where the person affected holds any property specified in the notice through any other person, to such other person also) a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties in question are illegally acquired properties. (2) Where the competent authority is satisfied that some of the properties referred to in the show cause notice are illegally acquired properties but is not able to identity specifically such properties, then it shall be lawful for the competent authority to specify the properties which, to the best of its judgment, are illegally acquired properties and record a finding according under sub-section (1). (3) Where the competent authority records a finding under this section to the effect that any property is illegally acquired property, it shall declare that such property shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, stand forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (4) Where any shares in a company stand forfeited to the Central Government under this Act, then the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the articles of association of the company, forthwith register the Central Government as the transferee of such shares. 8. Burden of proof. – In any proceedings under this Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected. 11. Certain transfers to be null and void – Whereafter the issue of a notice under section 6 or under section 10, any property referred to in the said notice is transferred by any mode whatsoever such transfer shall, for the purposes of the proceedings under this Act, be ignored and if such property is subsequently forfeited to the central Govt. under section 7, then, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. under section 7, then, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. [emphasis supplied] 10. A careful reading of the above provisions of the Act makes it clear that sub-section (1) of Section 2 declares as against whom the provisions of the Act apply. As per subsection (1) of Section 2, the provisions of the Act shall apply only to the persons specified, and sub-section (2) defines the persons. Our attention was invited to Section 2(2)(e), whereunder a person who is a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration is excluded from the definition of the person. 1. 1. If the stand of the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners that that they are purchasers in good faith and therefore they are not falling within the meaning of the person as defined in Section 2(2)(e) of the Act, to whom the provisions of the Act are applicable, is accepted, since the transaction under which the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners purchased the property in question, was taken place on 10-2-2005 i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the notice under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act and the very transaction is held to be null and void as per Section 11 of the Act, they are not entitled for issue of any notice at all. Once the transaction under which the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners claim right over the property in question is declared null and void, they cannot be called upon to discharge the burden of proof that the property specified is not an illegally acquired property and therefore they are not entitled for any notice whatsoever before forfeiture of the property in question under the provisions of the Act. 2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 12-9-2007, of course, set aside the forfeiture of the property in question and remanded the matter to the competent authority with a direction to give an opportunity to the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners applying the principles of natural justice. Natural justice only means 'fairplay in action.' But requirement of natural justice depends upon the facts of each case. It cannot be applied uniformly in all the cases. Natural justice only means 'fairplay in action.' But requirement of natural justice depends upon the facts of each case. It cannot be applied uniformly in all the cases. It is applicable only in the case where a notice is required and failure to issue such a notice would cause prejudice to the person who is required for such notice and ultimately result in failure of justice. But where no notice at all is required, as in the instant case, where the very transaction relied upon by the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners is statutorily declared as null and void, non-issuance of notice would not vitiate the action taken by the authority. Otherwise, it will only render the statute, in the instant case Section 11 of the Act, which declared such transaction null and void, redundant and a dead-letter. In view of Section 11 of the Act, we are constrained to take an exception to the traditional application of the principles of natural justice, holding that the respondents 1 and 2 – writ petitioners are not entitled to complain against the impugned forfeiture of the property in question, as the very transaction relied upon by them is declared as null and void. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to elastically extend the principles of natural justice in all the cases, where a notice is not at all required under the statute by operation of law. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.