Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010269442025 2025:GAU-AS:17547 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3996/2025 RUNU DAS W/O- DIPAK DAS, R/O-JANAKPUR, KAHILIPARA, MANDAKINI PATH, H NO. 36, UJJALNAGAR, P.O JATIA, DISPUR, GHY-781019 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA MIN OF FINANCE, DEPTT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR SAFEM (FOP)A 1976 AND NDPSA 1985 KOLKATA 10-B MIDDLETON ROW 1ST FLOOR INCOME TAX BUILDING KOLKATA- 70007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS. M DEY,MS B SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the opposite parties. 2. The applicant had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 766/2023, inter alia, assailing a notice dated 30.12.2015, issued by the Competent Authority & Administrator at Kolkata under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985) requiring her to show-cause under Sub-Section (1) of Section 68H of the Act of, 1985, as to why the properties as mentioned in the “Schedule of Properties” are not to be declared to have been illegally acquired property/ properties and forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the said Act of 1985. This Court after considering the issues arising in the matter and also after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, had passed the following directions: “13. In view of the above conclusion drawn by this Court and this Court having also held that there was no inconsistency in the initiation of the proceeding in the matter against the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner, herein, this Court requires the petitioner, herein, to approach the Competent Authority & Administrator, NPDS Act, 1985 at Kolkata who had issued the notice dated 14/17 October, 2022 and to file appropriate application before the said authority within a period of 02 (two) months from today and therein bring on record all requisite materials to dispel the presumption drawn in the matter that the immovable Page No.# 3/4 property as incorporated in the schedule of property to the notice dated 30-12-2015 was so acquired, out of the proceeds of crime received by the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner shall in her said application also bring on record materials which would establish that the said property was so acquired by her out of the assistance extended to her by her mother and sister. On such application being filed along with a certified copy of this order, the Competent Authority shall proceed, to consider the same, by granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, herein, and thereafter on verifying the contentions raised by the petitioner, proceed to take the pending proceedings to its logical conclusion. It is also provided that prior to passing of appropriate orders, on conclusion of hearing in the matter, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, herein, the possession of the petitioner over the property, in question, be not disturbed. 14. In the event, the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted hereinabove, does not submit any application, along with requisite materials within a period of 02 (two) months from today, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter ex-parte and take the same to its logical conclusion in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1985.” 3. In terms of the said directions, the petitioner was to appear before the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to passing of the said direction by this Court, vide order dated 02.09.2025, she had initiated steps for appearing before the competent authority in Kolkata, however, owing to financial hardship, the applicant could not arrange the necessary funds to travel to Kolkata and by the time the funds were arranged, the two months Page No.# 4/4 period as allowed by this Court, had already expired. It is also projected by Mr. Mishra that the two months period had elapsed on 02.11.2025. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the opposite parties submits that the present interlocutory application praying for extension of time was so filed on 03.12.2025, i.e. beyond the period originally permitted by this Court to applicant herein to appear before the competent authority in Kolkata. He submits that the present application for extension having been filed after the lapse of the period of 2 (two) months granted by this Court, the period would not be permissible to be extended and accordingly, the present application would be required to be dismissed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present interlocutory application with liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter. 7. The said prayer is not objected by Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the opposite parties. 8. In view of the above, the interlocutory application stands dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant