ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Our attention was drawn to the Order dated 18-7-2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 87/2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2003 wherein after hearing the learned counsel for the Competent Authority and perusing the Order dated 10-9-2009 passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1145/2002 and 1146/2002 and Order dated 8-10-2009 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2003, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that in both the petitions, no relief was granted in favour of the appellant herein and further the High Court observed that in the light of the judgment of this Court since notices were served on the appellants, if they are aggrieved by the notices, they are at liberty to avail any appropriate remedy which may be available to them in law. Therefore, the Order dated 8-10-2009 was not recalled and consequently Criminal Application No. 412/2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2003 filed by the Competent Authority was rejected. Aggrieved of the order, the appellant and other persons filed Application No. 87/2010 in the disposed of Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2003. The Division Bench of the High Court after perusal of its order dated 8-10-2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition held that the application filed by the applicants is misconstrued and further clearly held that the Order dated 8-10-2009 did not grant any relief in favour of the applicants, therefore, the Criminal Application is rejected. The correctness of this order is under challenge in these appeals. 5. The fact remains that against the order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of its power under Section 68I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 confiscating the property in respect of which the claim is preferred by the husband of the appellant (since deceased), no order is passed by the High Court and they have also questioned the Order dated 8-10-2009 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2003 wherein it is observed as follows : "...this Court applied the judgment, irrespective of pendency of this petition to the present petitioners as well, which in other words, would mean that the orders impugned in this petition against the petitioners already stand revoked. Therefore, we need not pass any further orders. Therefore, we need not pass any further orders. However, notices have been served on the Petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved of those notices, they are at liberty to take any appropriate remedy which may be available to them in law, irrespective of the outcome of this Writ Petition. Writ Petition stands disposed of" 6. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners (appellant herein), the High Court by its earlier Order dated 8-10-2009 held that the Order of this Court in the case of Aslam Mohd. Merchant v. Competent Authority and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 186 , has been approved by the High Court irrespective of pendency of petition before High Court. The Competent Authority has issued notices in the light of the observations and directions issued by this Court. 7. It was submitted by counsel for respondents that the issuance of notice is in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and, thereafter, the Competent Authority determined the lis between the parties with regard to the confiscation and the Tribunal has confirmed it and the same is the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court. The High Court has observed that order stands revoked as being similar. However, it was submitted that notice in the case was legal and proper, therefore, in our opinion, the confiscation order passed by the Competent Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal requires to be considered in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein. Hence, the matter requires remand to the High Court to re-examine the claim and counter claim of the parties after giving them an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously. All legal contentions raised in these appeals are kept open. 8. In the result, these criminal appeals are accordingly allowed and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for its consideration on merits. Matter remanded.