1998 (7) TMI 551 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA based on delay in disposal of representations and additional grounds raised.

In this case, the petitioner, the wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on the grounds of delay in disposing of representations. The petitioner contended that the representation made to the Joint Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, was disposed of after abnormal delay, and the detenu's representation to the Government through prison was decided merely on a forwarding note, indicating a lack of application of mind. The petitioner also sought to raise additional grounds, alleging abnormal delay in deciding the representation. The respondent, on the other hand, denied the allegations, asserting the detenu's involvement in foreign exchange transactions and the legality of the detention order.

The court analyzed the legal position regarding the right of a detenu to make representations and the obligation to consider them independently. The court noted that the concerned Minister had considered and rejected the representation independently, after due application of mind, dismissing the petitioner's argument of non-application of mind. The court also addressed the issue of delay in deciding the representation, emphasizing that the representation was considered and rejected in a reasonable time, thus rejecting the petitioner's contention of abnormal delay.

Regarding the additional grounds raised by the petitioner, the court allowed the petitioner to raise them and considered the explanations offered by the learned Additional Central Government standing counsel. The court found that the representations were considered within a reasonable time, and the Minister had already rejected the representation before the additional grounds were raised. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no basis to quash the detention order, especially considering that the one-year period of detention had already expired. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order under COFEPOSA.