JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. Heard Mr. Deba Prasad Das, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. 2. This appeal has been filed under section 17 of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 (hereafter ‘2006 Act’) by the appellants Sangram Keshari Nayak, Prasant Kumar Nayak, Susant Kumar Nayak, Bikram Keshari Nayak, Ranjurani Mandal and Sanjukta Charchy who are the legal heirs of late Biswanath Nayak who was an accused in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.09 of 1990 in which charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which corresponds to T.R. No.2/35 of 2009/1992 from the file of learned Special Judge, Special Court (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. 3. The appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the learned Authorized Officer, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2012 in rejecting the petition dated 18.07.2016 filed by them for release of the seized documents like National Saving Certificates, Indira Vikas Patra, fixed deposits in banks, pass books, sale deed and cash seized during house search of late Biswanath Nayak. 4. It is not disputed at the Bar that the said accused Biswanath Nayak died during pendency of the proceeding on 10.09.2013. Consequent upon his death, the trial stood abetted and the learned Trial Court passed an order on 05.11.2013 in that respect. However, the learned Trial Court did not pass any order regarding disposal of the properties under seizure. The confiscation proceeding which was initiated under the provisions under section 13 of the 2006 Act was also dropped due to the same reason. The present appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased first moved an application for release of the seized documents and cash in their favour before the learned Special Judge, Special Court (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar which was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2016 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as there was a separate provision and forum in the 2006 Act for the said purpose. Then the appellants filed an application before the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2012 for release of various deposits in banks, post offices and financial institutions and cash under seizure. Then the appellants filed an application before the learned Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2012 for release of various deposits in banks, post offices and financial institutions and cash under seizure. The learned Authorized Officer vide impugned order dated 24.09.2016 has been pleased to observe as follows:- “The learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar on dated 06.06.2016 passed an order rejecting similar petition for release of the seized documents on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of special provisions under Chapter-III of Special Courts Act, 2006 notwithstanding the fact that the confiscation proceeding has already been dropped in the mean time. There is no specific provision for release of the seized documents in Chapter-III of the Special Courts Act more specifically in Section 19 of the said Act by the authorized officer before confiscation. Accordingly, the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties bears no merit and the petition filed for release of the seized documents stands rejected.” 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department placed the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Renubala Das Vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) reported in 2016 (2) OLR 1107 wherein in identical facts and situation, the learned Division Bench has held that the Authorized Officer is the only competent authority to deal with an application for release of the money and/or property involved in a confiscation proceeding in case of demise of an accused and that the Special Court has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the application for return of money and property of the person affected. 6. Mr. Deba Prasad Das, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order which has been passed by the learned Authorized Officer is against the principle decided by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Renubala Das and others (supra) and therefore, the learned Authorized Officer should deal with the petition dated 18.07.2016 filed by the appellants afresh on merits. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department has no serious objection to such prayer. 8. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department has no serious objection to such prayer. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the learned Authorized Officer is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar who shall, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of Renubala Das and others (supra) dispose of the petition dated 18.07.2016 filed by the appellants afresh in accordance with law on merits. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition which has been filed for release of the fixed deposits, cash and other documents. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLA petition is disposed of. A free copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned Standing counsel for the Vigilance Department.