2000 (10) TMI 959 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order dated 27th October, 1999.
2. Requirement for the detaining authority to consider complete material before issuing a detention order.
3. The legality of piecemeal consideration of documents by the detaining authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the detention order dated 27th October, 1999:
The petitioner, a friend of the detenu, sought to quash the detention order dated 27th October, 1999, issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The detaining authority issued the order to prevent the detenu from abetting in the smuggling of goods. The detention order was served on the detenu on 19th February, 2000. The court focused on ground (iv) raised by the petitioner, which questioned the timing and completeness of the documents considered by the detaining authority when formulating the grounds of detention.

2. Requirement for the detaining authority to consider complete material before issuing a detention order:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority must disclose the date of receipt of the detention proposal and the documents received with it. Additionally, the authority must reveal whether any further documents were received after drafting the grounds of detention and whether these grounds were reconsidered and reformulated. The detaining authority initially formulated the draft grounds of detention on 16-10-1999 based on incomplete material and received additional documents on 18-10-1999. However, the detention order was issued on 27-10-1999 without reformulating the grounds of detention.

3. The legality of piecemeal consideration of documents by the detaining authority:
The affidavit in reply by the Deputy Secretary of the Home Department stated that the detaining authority acted promptly and vigilantly, issuing the detention order after considering the proposal and arriving at subjective satisfaction. However, the court found that the detaining authority's application of mind in piecemeal was impermissible in law. The detaining authority must apply its mind to the complete material at one time and cannot scrutinize documents and reach satisfaction in phases.

The court referred to several judgments to support its view:
- Mohammed Afzal Yakub v. The State of Maharashtra: The court held that a haphazard or piecemeal consideration of evidence connotes a cavalier and casual approach, which is impermissible.
- Mrs. Savita Ramesh Jain v. State of Maharashtra: The court set aside the detention order as the grounds were formulated without considering all documents together. The Apex Court upheld this judgment.
- Ashwinkumar B. Halari v. State of Maharashtra: The court emphasized that the grounds of detention must be formulated after considering all material together, not piecemeal.
- Prakash Amritlal Shah v. The State of Maharashtra: The court reiterated the same position.

In the present case, the detaining authority formulated the draft grounds of detention on 16-10-1999 based on incomplete documents and issued the detention order on 27-10-1999 without reviewing and reformulating the grounds after receiving additional documents on 18-10-1999. This piecemeal consideration vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention order invalid.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the detention order dated 27-10-1999 and ordered the immediate release of the detenu unless required in any other case. The rule was made absolute in these terms.