2001 (5) TMI 901 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention orders under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Delay in consideration of the detenus' representations by the detaining authority and the Central Government.
3. Constitutional and legal obligations regarding the detenus' right to make representations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Orders:
The petitions challenged the detention orders dated 25-5-2000 issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The orders aimed to prevent the detenus from smuggling goods. The detenus were intercepted at IGI Airport with large quantities of dutiable and electronic goods, which they could not legally justify. Their voluntary statements admitted the recovery and seizure of the goods, leading to the belief that they were engaged in smuggling activities.

2. Delay in Consideration of Representations:
The detenus contended that their representations were not dealt with promptly, resulting in an inordinate delay. They made representations to the Central Government on 13-6-2000, requesting that a copy be forwarded to the detaining authority. The Central Government received these representations on 14-6-2000 but forwarded them to the detaining authority only on 29-6-2000, the same day the representations were rejected by the detaining authority. The detenus argued that this delay rendered the detention invalid.

3. Constitutional and Legal Obligations:
The respondents argued that the Central Government's power of revocation under section 11 of the Act is independent. The representation was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 26-6-2000. The detaining authority received and rejected the representation on 29-6-2000. The court emphasized that the right to make a representation implies the right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court cited several precedents, including Gracy v. State of Kerala and Sat Pal v. State of Punjab, to highlight the importance of procedural safeguards in matters of personal liberty.

Judgment:
The court examined whether there was an obligation on the Central Government to send the representation to the detaining authority and whether the delay in doing so was fatal. It referred to R. Keshava v. M.B. Prakash, which clarified that the Advisory Board is not obligated to forward the entire record to the government. The court concluded that the delay in forwarding the representation by the Central Government did not invalidate the detention order, as the representation was considered promptly by the detaining authority upon receipt.

In conclusion, the court found no substance in the plea of unexplained inaction and dismissed the petitions, affirming the legality of the detention orders.