ORDER : R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik, JJ. Leave granted. Heard. 2. One Champalal Shah was prosecuted for involvement in smuggling of 11000 tolas of gold which was seized on 30th/31st May, 1965 and was convicted under Customs Act, 1962, which was ultimately upheld by this Court on 12-8-1981. State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, (1981) 3 SCC 410. 3. The competent authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEM Act', for short) issued show cause notices under Section 6(1) of SAFEM Act to the Respondents on 4-4-1984 and 12-7-1984 proposing to declare their properties as illegally acquired properties (within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 3(1) of SAFEM Act and forfeit them to the Central Government. This was followed by orders dated 3-9-1984, 9-10-1984, 10-10-1984, 5-11-1984, 9-11-1984, 13-11-1984, 19-11-1984 and 23-11-1984, passed by the competent Authority, under Section 7 of the SAFEM Act declaring the properties of the Respondents as illegally acquired properties and forfeiting them to the Central Government. 4. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties upheld the order of the competent authority with some modifications by order dated 20-3-1985. Respondents filed writ petitions challenging the forfeiture proceedings. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by a brief order dated 6-1-2009 (amended on 19-3-2009. Shampabai D. Shah v. Union of India, WP No. 2485 of 1994 order dated 19.3.2009 (Bom) allowed the writ petitions in terms of the order in Union of India v. Rajnikant Raghunath Belekar and Anr., (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22.7.2008 (Bom). Feeling aggrieved, the Union of India has filed these appeals by special leave. 5. The Division Bench of the High Court did not refer to the facts of the case in the impugned order dated 6-1-2009. The High Court did not also refer to the provisions of Section 3(1)(c), 6 and 7 of SAFEM Act nor indicate the reasons as to why it considered that the matter was covered by the decision in Rajnikant Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom). On 13-8-2010, this Court issued a limited notice on the special leave petitions to show cause why the matters should not be remanded to the High Court for deciding the matters with reference to Section 6 read with Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEM Act, by a reasoned order. 6. On 13-8-2010, this Court issued a limited notice on the special leave petitions to show cause why the matters should not be remanded to the High Court for deciding the matters with reference to Section 6 read with Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEM Act, by a reasoned order. 6. In Rajnikant R. Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom), the High Court held that unless the direct nexus between the property which was sought to be forfeited under SAFEM Act and the income derived by way of contravention of the provisions of the SAFEM Act, or the acquisition of the property by the person concerned by illegal activities, was established, the property could not be made subject matter of proceedings under SAFEM Act. For this purpose, in Rajnikant R. Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom) it relied upon the decision of this Court in Aslam Mohd. Merchant v. Competent Authority, (2008) 14 SCC 186 . 7. The Appellant submitted that Rajnikant R. Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom) had not considered Section 6(1) of SAFEM Act. It was also submitted that the decision in Aslam Mohd. Merchant, (2008) 14 SCC 186 relied upon in Rajnikant R. Belekar, (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom) dealt with the words 'illegally acquired property' defined in Section 68B(g) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act' for short), which was materially different from the definition of 'illegally acquired property' under Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEM Act; and that therefore the decision in Aslam Mohd. Merchant (2008) 14 SCC 186 , was not of much assistance and this aspect was ignored by Rajnikant R. Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom). It was submitted that Rajnikant R. Belekar (W.P. No. 837 of 2007 decided on 22-7-2008 (Bom) was wrongly decided. It was submitted that the principles relating to SAFEM Act have been laid by this Court in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1994 (5) SCC 54 ; Fatima Mohamed Amin v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 436 ; Kesar Devi v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 427 and other cases and the High Court had not considered any of those decisions. 8. We find considerable merit in the submission of the Appellant. 8. We find considerable merit in the submission of the Appellant. The High Court has not referred to the facts, nor considered the validity of the notices under Section 6 of the Act and the orders of forfeiture under Section 7 of the Act with reference to the facts and provisions of SAFEM Act and the decisions of this Court. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained. On this limited ground the matters deserve to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the order dated 6-1-2009 passed by the High Court and remit the matters to the High Court for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. 10. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the cases or the legal issues arising in the appeals. Appeals allowed.