9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 based on delay in disposing of representation. Detailed Analysis: The petition challenges a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed against the petitioner on 11-2-1999 by respondent No. 2. The facts leading to this order include the interception of the petitioner on 29-7-1998 at IGI Airport, where foreign and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 17,44,380 was allegedly recovered from him. The petitioner made a statement admitting possession of the currency under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and the detention order was issued while he was in custody. The petitioner's representations for revocation of the detention order were rejected by the authorities, leading to the current challenge. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner was regarding a representation dated 24-3-1999, which was rejected by the detaining authority after a delay of more than a month. It was argued that this delay in disposing of the representation rendered the detention order liable to be quashed. Legal precedents such as Mohd. Abdullahi Yusuf v. Union of India and Shakil Ahmed Ansari v. Union of India were cited in support of this argument. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 acknowledged the delay in considering the representation but contended that since no new facts were presented in the second representation, the delay was inconsequential. Legal authorities like Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale v. Union of India and Jamal Haji Jakaria v. Union of India were relied upon to support this argument. The representations dated 18-2-1999 and 24-3-1999 were compared, revealing that the grounds for seeking revocation of the detention order in the latter were not substantially different from the former. The detaining authority's rejection of the second representation was based on the lack of new facts presented. The judgment cited previous legal cases such as Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale's case to emphasize that delay in disposing of a representation may not be significant if no new and relevant facts are introduced. The decision in Jamal Haji Jakaria's case was also referenced to support the contention that successive representations based on the same grounds may not require formal disposal if no new information is provided. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay in disposing of the representation dated 24-3-1999, which did not introduce any new grounds, could not be a valid basis for quashing the detention order. The judgment emphasized the importance of presenting new and relevant facts in subsequent representations to warrant reconsideration by the detaining authority.
|
