2000 (12) TMI 818 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
2. Acting in unison by Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority.
3. Non-supply of documents in a known language.
4. Rejection of proposal by Screening Committee.
5. Withholding of material evidence by Sponsoring Authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the Detaining Authority could not have considered documents running into more than a thousand pages within a short time, indicating non-application of mind. The court held that the Detaining Authority's consideration of materials was a continuous process, not piecemeal. The Detaining Authority had familiarized itself with the documents over time, and the subjective satisfaction was formed based on a continuous consideration of the materials. The court rejected the plea of non-application of mind, citing precedents where similar contentions were dismissed.

2. Acting in Unison by Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority:
The petitioner contended that the Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority acted in unison, thus lacking independent application of mind. The court found no merit in this argument. It was established that the Detaining Authority made extensive corrections in its own handwriting, indicating independent application of mind. The court emphasized that even if some repetition of materials from the proposal occurred, it did not per se show non-application of mind.

3. Non-supply of Documents in a Known Language:
The petitioner argued that some relied-upon documents were in a language unknown to the detenu or the Detaining Authority, vitiating the detention order. The court noted that the documents in question were annexed to the representations made by the detenu himself. The court held that non-supply of translation did not cause prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation. Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if it were conceded that English translation ought to have been furnished, it would not vitiate the entire order of detention as it may relate to a non-vital ground.

4. Rejection of Proposal by Screening Committee:
The petitioner argued that the Screening Committee initially did not consider it necessary to suggest detention, and without any further material, the detention order was passed. The court noted that the Screening Committee had deferred the decision on the first proposal and subsequently received a fresh proposal. The Detaining Authority had the option to agree or disagree with the Screening Committee's views. The court found no substance in the plea regarding non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority vis-a-vis the Screening Committee's views.

5. Withholding of Material Evidence by Sponsoring Authority:
The petitioner contended that certain materials which could have influenced the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction were not placed by the Sponsoring Authority. The court held that the Sponsoring Authority had not withheld any material on the ground that it was not relevant. The court emphasized that it is for the Detaining Authority to determine what constitutes relevant material, and the Sponsoring Authority's role is to place all materials linked with the subjective satisfaction before the Detaining Authority. The court found no merit in the plea that relevant documents were not placed before the Detaining Authority.

Conclusion:
The court meticulously addressed each ground of challenge raised by the petitioner and found them to be untenable. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards and the necessity of maintaining a balance between individual liberty and societal order.