2001 (11) TMI 945 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the allegations of forgery and manipulation of the shipping bills levelled against the detenu were true or not? Whether the detenu should be detained under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The contention raised on behalf of the detenu that the order of detention was vitiated due to non-application of mind of the detaining authority cannot be accepted. The High Court committed no error in declining to interfere with the detention order and in dismissing the writ petition.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the detention order.
2. Non-consideration of relevant materials and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
3. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
4. Translation and consideration of documents in the representation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Detention Order:
The appeal was filed by the father of the detenu against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The detenu was detained for misusing the DEPB scheme by manipulating shipping bills and forging documents to claim undue benefits. The grounds of detention detailed the misuse of the DEPB scheme and the involvement of the detenu in such activities. The detaining authority considered the allegations, materials collected, and the detenu's replies, ultimately concluding that the detenu's activities amounted to smuggling and warranted preventive detention.

2. Non-consideration of Relevant Materials and Non-application of Mind:
The appellant argued that the detention order was vitiated due to non-consideration of relevant materials and non-application of mind. Specifically, it was contended that the detaining authority did not verify the shipping bills to ascertain the allegations of forgery and manipulation. The respondent countered that the detaining authority had considered all relevant materials, including statements and documents, and arrived at a subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of detention. The Court referred to various precedents emphasizing that all relevant documents must be placed before the detaining authority and considered to avoid vitiating the subjective satisfaction.

3. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The Court examined whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on relevant materials. It was noted that the detaining authority considered the organized activities of the detenu, the materials collected, and the detenu's replies. The Court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction is not to be judged by a strict formula but depends on the facts, nature of activities, and materials collected. The Court found that the detaining authority had considered all relevant materials placed before it and that the subjective satisfaction was valid.

4. Translation and Consideration of Documents in the Representation:
The appellant contended that a document in Urdu annexed to the representation was not translated into English and thus not considered by the detaining authority. The Court found no material evidence to support this contention and noted that the issue was not raised before the High Court. Additionally, there was no indication that the detenu sought assistance for translation. Therefore, the contention was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the detention order was not vitiated by non-application of mind or non-consideration of relevant materials. The High Court did not err in dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.