2000 (3) TMI 1070 - SC - FEMA

Detenu challenging the order of detention passed against him on 2.8.99 under the COFEPOSA Held that - The detention order in respect of the present petitioner should be based principally on the facts centerd on what he had done in collaboration with his co-traveler. The detaining authority cannot be said to be totally ignorant of the fact that Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was also detained under a separate order, for, the aforesaid detention order against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was passed by the same detaining authority just six days prior to the impugned detention order. the grievance regarding delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government is not valid in the circumstances of this case. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to say that the parole benefit which petitioner is enjoying by virtue of the order passed by this Court will stand terminated forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging detention order under COFEPOSA based on delay in considering representation, lack of compelling necessity for preventive detention, and failure to place relevant documents.

Analysis:
1. Challenging Detention Order: The detenu challenged the detention order under COFEPOSA, citing three main points. Firstly, the sponsoring authority, Customs Department, did not present crucial documents before the detaining authority. However, the court reasoned that the detaining authority was aware of the co-traveler's detention and based the order on the detenu's actions in collaboration. Therefore, the absence of the co-traveler's records did not significantly impact the decision.

2. Delay in Considering Representation: The detenu argued that there was a delay in processing his representation by the Central Government, which could invalidate the detention order. The court acknowledged the delay but emphasized that the reason for the delay must be reasonable and acceptable. The representation reached the COFEPOSA Unit after government holidays, and the court accepted the explanation provided by the senior counsel regarding the sorting process of mails during that period, deeming the delay reasonable.

3. Compelling Necessity for Preventive Detention: The detenu contended that since his co-traveler was already detained, there was no need for his separate detention. However, the State of Tamil Nadu argued that the detaining authority needed to assess the detenu's potential involvement in smuggling activities, especially considering his previous travels with the co-traveler and the contraband found on their return from Singapore. The court upheld the necessity for the detenu's preventive detention, rejecting the argument that he should be treated differently from his co-traveler.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition challenging the detention order was dismissed, emphasizing the detenu's involvement in suspicious activities and supporting the decision for preventive detention. The court also ordered the termination of the parole benefit enjoyed by the detenu.