JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal under section 17 of Special Court Act, 2011 the appellant has challenged the order of authorized officer dated 25.9.2018 rejecting the statement of defence under rule 10(1)(2) (3) of Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Niyam, 2012 (for short the Rules) as also the application under rule 10(7) of the Rules. 2. Short facts are that the proceedings for confiscation of the property have been initiated against the appellant under the provisions of Special Courts Act and appellant had not filed reply within a period of 45 days including the extended period of 15 days, therefore, the authorized officer has refused to take the reply on record. The appellant had also filed the application under rule 10(7) of Rules for revaluation of property which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the provision contained in rule 10(2) and (3) are not mandatory hence the appellants could have filed reply even beyond period of 45 days and trial Court has committed an error in refusing to take the reply on record. He further submits that trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application under rule 10(7) of the Rules. 4. As against this counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that this Court by a separate order passed today in Criminal Appeal No. 7840/2018 (Mahesh and another v. State of M.P.) [Published in 2019 (1) JLJ 87 ] has held the provisions of rule 10(2) and (3) of rules to be mandatory in nature. It has been held that if statement of defence is not filed by affected party within the extended period of 45 days, then it shall be presumed that affected person has no defence to put forward and the authorized officer is free to adjudicate the matter 6. Having regard to the detailed reasons assigned in the order passed in the case of Mahesh (supra), the plea of appellants that provisions contained in rule 10(2) and (3) of rules are directory cannot be accepted. 7. Having regard to the detailed reasons assigned in the order passed in the case of Mahesh (supra), the plea of appellants that provisions contained in rule 10(2) and (3) of rules are directory cannot be accepted. 7. The impugned order reveals that appellants had not filed the statement of defence within a period of 45 days as required by rule (2) and (3) and had also not filed any application for condonation of delay, therefore, the authorized officer has refused to take the reply on record. The order passed by the authorized officer is in consonance with rule 10(2) and (3) of rules. Hence no error is found therein. 8. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the order dated 27.8.2018 but in that case question if reply could be filed after expiry of 45 days has been left open. 9. So far as the application under rule 10(7) is concerned, the said provisions reads as under : 10(7) If the person affected proposes to contest the valuation of the property the authorised officer may take assistance of such State Government agency or Central Government agency or any other officer or person technically qualified as he may deem fit and proper. 10. The order passed by the authorized officer reveals that authorized officer has already taken recourse to rule 10(7) and had got the property valued from the Public Works Department of the State Government. The authorized officer in the impugned order has noted that the prosecution and the valuing agency are two different institutions and valuing agency is an independent institution. The Public Works Department has filed the document of valuation and appellants have also taken objection thereon. Therefore, the authorized officer has noted that revaluation is not permissible and objection taken by the appellant will be decided on their own merit. 11. Counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the order of this Court in the matter of Narendra v. Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, reported in 2016(III) MPWN 25 , but in that case the matter was remanded back to give one opportunity to both the parties to show if valuation done by prosecuting agency was proper, but in the present case the appellants already have that opportunity. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Ranjana Pandey v. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore (MP) by order dated 6.12.2018 in Cri.A. No. 63/2018 has held rule 10(7) to be discretionary and in the matter of Om Prakash Vishwapremi v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt by order dated 13.12.2018 in Cri.A. No. 7049/2018 has held that section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable after 45 days. 12. Hence the order passed by the authorized officer in this regard does not suffer from any error. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances it is found that the impugned order does not suffer from any error and no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.