Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the first respondent, Competent Authority, S.A. F.E.M.(FOP) & NDPS, Chennai to furnish a copy of the order, dated 29.11.2002 in Case No.OCA/MDS/2870/2000 passed by the first respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, bearing Door No.121, Ward No.8, Sanguvetti Street, Keelakkarai, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner purchased the said property by virtue of a Settlement Deed, dated 02.06.1984 and registered as Document No.671 of 1984 on the file of the S.R.O., Keelakkarai from her mother Siddi Halima and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Only in December 2003, the second respondent through his staff approached the petitioner and informed that the above property had been forfeited by the first respondent and initiated for recovery of the said property. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent and obtained a Xerox copy of the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by the first respondent under Section 19(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Further case of the petitioner is that she had not received any notice under Section 6 of the Act or under any other provisions of the said Act from the first respondent at any point of time. The petitioners father had been implicated in a customs case and in furtherance of which, the first respondent initiated the proceedings under the said Act for forfeiture of the property. Subsequently, for the purpose of challenging the correctness of the order dated 13.03.2003, the petitioner also engaged counsel who approached the first respondent for perusing the records and requested him to give a copy of the said order, but the same was denied. The petitioner could not, therefore, initiate any proceedings without an order copy from the first respondent. Having left with no other alternative, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the first respondent to furnish a copy of the order dated 29.11.2002 passed under Sections 7(1) and 19(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2002. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2002. Without having the original copy of the order dated 29.11.2002, the appeal is not maintainable and only for that purpose when the petitioner approached the first respondent and requested him to furnish a copy of the order, but the same was denied. It was submitted that the first respondent cannot refuse to furnish a copy the order dated 29.11.2002, and, therefore, prayer was made to issue a direction to the first respondent to furnish a copy of the order dated 29.11.2002. 4. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in law and on facts, since the Department has already complied with the requirements of the statute in the present proceedings by following the procedure contemplated in law as per Section 22 of the Act. In terms of the said provisions, the order dated 29.11.2002 was sent to the petitioner, but the same was refused by the petitioner. The original notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued to Smt. Kansul Farita (the present petitioner) to show cause why the property put on notice should not be forfeited by the Central Government. The above notice was sent to the petitioner by Registered post with Acknowledgment Due to the petitioner on 14.08.2000, but the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "Refused, Returned to Sender" on 21.08.2000. Again the said notice was further sent to the Superintendent of Customs, Central Preventive Unit, Keelakari in terms of Section 22 of the Act for service on the petitioner personally or in her absence by affixture in a conspicuous place in the property. Since the petitioner was not available, the notice under Section 6(1) was served by affixture on the front door of the petitioners property in the presence of two independent witnesses and a Mahazar was also drawn for the same on 31.03.2000. Subsequently, a notice of personal hearing dated 03.09.2002 fixing hearing on 04.10.2002 was also sent to the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "Left without notice, returned to sender". Subsequently, a notice of personal hearing dated 03.09.2002 fixing hearing on 04.10.2002 was also sent to the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "Left without notice, returned to sender". Again, another notice of personal hearing dated 10.10.2002 fixing personal hearing dated 12.11.2002 was sent through the Superintendent of Customs, Central Preventive Unit, Keelakarai for service and the same was refused to be accepted and, therefore, the same was pasted on the front door of the house of the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses and a Mahazar was drawn for the same on 23.10.2002. After noting the above development, the Competent Authority having seen the non-participation of the petitioner and her mother in the proposed proceedings, despite opportunities afforded, finally passed an order under Section 7(1) of the Act dated 29.11.2002 forfeiting the above said property and the said order also was sent by the registered post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner at 8/10 West Street, Kilakarai, Ramanathapuram, but the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "unclaimed-returned to sender". Thereafter, another order under Section 7 (1) of the Act was sent to the Superintendent of Customs, Central Preventive Unit, Keelakarai for service. As the petitioner refused to accept the above order, the entire order was pasted on the front door of the house of the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses and a Mahazar was drawn for the same on 18.01.2003. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent further submits that another order dated 13.03.2003 under Section 19(1) of the Act was sent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due and the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remark "unclaimed" on 31.03.2003. Once again the said order was served by way of affixture by the Superintendent of Customs, Central Preventive Unit, Keelakarai on 30.04.2003 in the presence of two independent witnesses as the petitioner had refused to receive the same, and a Mahazar was also drawn for the same. The respondents, on the above facts, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records. The respondents, on the above facts, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records. It is clear from the records that the petitioner has time and again refused to receive the notice and subsequently the notice of hearing as well as the final order sent by the respondent was refused to be received and, therefore, the same was pasted on the front door of the house of the petitioner. When both the first order dated 29.11.2002 and the subsequent order dated 13.03.2003 passed under Section 19(1) of the Act were sent by Registered Post with acknowledgment due, the same were deliberately refused and returned by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the present writ petition filed to direct the first respondent to furnish a copy of the order dated 29.11.2002 in Case No.OCA/MDS/2870/2000 is only for the purpose of dragging on the matter and also to avoid the delay in filing the Appeal. In view of the above said reasons, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.