9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1981 (10) TMI 173 - SC - FEMAWhether the order of detention has been passed on the materials before it? Held that - It has been stated in the affidavit that the entire record was placed before the Home Minister who after careful consideration of the entire record has passed the impugned order of detention and that he (Mr. Shah) only authenticated the impugned order of detention in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. As the order has been A taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and validly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary concerned, the order tentamounts to an order by the State Government of Gujarat. It therefore cannot be said that the order of detention was not passed by the competent authority. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of detention passed by the State of Gujarat under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 2. Quashing of the detention order by the Gujarat High Court based on alleged lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. 3. Competency of the authority passing the detention order under Section 3 of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the order of detention The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat High Court's decision to quash the detention order issued against the respondent under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The High Court found that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case, leading to the order being quashed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this finding, stating that the orders of detention were duly authorized by the State Government and were based on careful consideration of the materials before the authority. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction required under the Act is subjective to the detaining authority and not subject to further examination by the Court. Issue 2: Quashing of the detention order The High Court's decision to quash the detention order was based on the premise that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the materials before making the decision. However, the Supreme Court found that this conclusion was incorrect as the orders of detention were properly authenticated and based on a thorough consideration of the record by the Home Minister. The Court reiterated that the High Court's role is limited to ensuring that the order was based on the materials before the authority and not to assess the adequacy of those materials. Issue 3: Competency of the authority passing the detention order A new argument raised in the appeal was regarding the competency of the authority passing the detention order under Section 3 of the Act. The contention was that the order was signed by a Deputy Secretary, not specifically mentioned as an authority under the Act. However, an affidavit clarified that the Home Minister had duly considered the record and passed the detention order, with the Deputy Secretary only authenticating it. The Supreme Court held that since the order was taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and validly authenticated, it was considered an order by the State Government and thus passed by a competent authority. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision to quash the detention order. The Court affirmed the validity of the detention order, emphasizing the importance of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
|
