9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the detention order based on delay in considering representation by the Central Government, withholding of vital documents by the sponsoring authority, and unexplained delay in passing the detention order. Analysis: The writ petition challenges the validity of the detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu, Mr. M.L. Jose, contests the delay in considering his representation by the Central Government, the alleged withholding of vital documents by the sponsoring authority, and the unexplained delay in passing the detention order since the date of the detenu's alleged activities. The first contention raised by the detenu's counsel pertains to the delay in considering the representation, which is argued to render the detention illegal under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The respondents refute this claim, stating that the representation was received and duly processed within a reasonable timeframe, thereby complying with constitutional requirements. The court cites previous cases to emphasize the importance of expeditious consideration of representations but concludes that in this instance, the delay was not unreasonable, given the circumstances. The second argument revolves around the alleged withholding of vital documents, specifically the reply to a show cause notice made by the detenu's wife. The detaining authority clarifies that the content of the reply was already considered before the detention order was issued, rendering the absence of the document inconsequential. The court, after reviewing the records, confirms that the detaining authority did not rely on the mentioned reply, thereby dismissing the relevance of this contention. The third contention regarding an unexplained delay in passing the detention order is refuted based on the detenu's travel history, indicating that he was abroad until after the detention order was issued. The court finds no merit in any of the arguments presented by the detenu's counsel and subsequently dismisses the writ petition for lacking substance in challenging the validity of the detention order. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upholds the validity of the detention order, rejecting all three contentions raised by the detenu's counsel. The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely consideration of representations while highlighting the specific circumstances of the case that led to the dismissal of the challenges to the detention order.
|
