9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Mind 2. Inconsistency in Detention Orders 3. Denial of Legal Consultation 4. Delay in Forwarding Representation Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Mind: The petitioner challenged his detention under Sec. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, claiming that the detention order was passed without any application of mind. The English version of the order (Ann. 'B') stated the object of detention was to prevent the petitioner from engaging in transporting smuggled goods, while the Hindi version (Ann. 'A') stated the object was to prevent the petitioner from dealing in smuggled goods. This discrepancy indicated that the detention order was mechanically passed without a clear understanding of the real purpose of detention, rendering the order ab initio void and illegal. 2. Inconsistency in Detention Orders: The detention order in English (Ann. 'B') and Hindi (Ann. 'A') had mutually exclusive grounds. The English order aimed to prevent the petitioner from engaging in transporting smuggled goods, whereas the Hindi order aimed to prevent dealing in smuggled goods, excluding transportation. This inconsistency demonstrated non-application of mind by the detaining authority, as the grounds for detention were not aligned, which is a condition precedent for passing a valid detention order. 3. Denial of Legal Consultation: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was denied a valuable right of consultation with his counsel, which is essential for making an effective representation. Applications for an interview with the detenu were not granted despite directions from the respondent authorities. This denial vitiated the continued detention of the petitioner, as it infringed upon his right to legal consultation. 4. Delay in Forwarding Representation: There was an unjustifiable delay in forwarding the petitioner's representation. The representation was received by jail authorities on 5-2-1992 but was not forwarded until 8-2-1992. The respondents claimed that the representation was received by the Central Government on 12-2-1992 and was rejected on 5-3-1992. The delay in forwarding the representation was indicative of procedural lapses, affecting the petitioner's right to a timely review of his detention. Conclusion: The High Court found that the detention order suffered from a lack of application of mind due to the inconsistent grounds stated in the English and Hindi versions of the order. The inconsistency in the grounds of detention, coupled with the denial of legal consultation and delay in forwarding the representation, rendered the detention order illegal. The petition was allowed, and the detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
|
