opportunities to appear in person before the adjudicating/competent authority on 10.11.2004, 14.12.2004, 31.01.2005 and again on 15.02.2005. The appellant himself appeared as recorded in the impugned order on two occasions but sought adjournments. On the last occasion i.e. on 15.02.2005, a representative of the appellant came and only submitted a copy of the sale deed of the property. The appellant during the hearing in the Tribunal had stated that on 15.02.2005, the representative had sought another date for PH before the adjudicating authority. However, on questioning he could not produce any correspondence to that effect before me and therefore appears to be an afterthought. The above would show that fair chance has been given to the appellant to present his case before the adjudicating authority both in writing as well as in person. Hence, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice has not been followed. c. The contention that there has to be a nexus between the property and the alleged offence since in this case the property was purchased prior to his detention under COFEPOSA, has not been validated by many judgments of the Supreme Court. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.P. Abdullah & Ors. vs. Competent Authority (2007 AIR SCW946) dated 14.12.2006 and Fatima Mohd. Ameen vs. UOI [(2003) SCC 436] dated 16.01.2003. However, in the case of Kesar Devi vs. UOI & ors. (2003 7 SCC 427) the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Division Bench and which was on the context of SAFEMA, has held:
