1990 (8) TMI 395 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA based on reliance on irrelevant documents leading to non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention order was passed by an empowered officer to prevent the petitioner from acting prejudicially to foreign exchange augmentation. The petitioner's detention was based on information received regarding his involvement in foreign exchange transactions at his stall and residence. The petitioner challenged his detention on various grounds, including the detaining authority's reliance on irrelevant documents leading to a lack of application of mind. The petitioner specifically pointed out several documents considered irrelevant by the detaining authority, such as medical certificates and bills, power of attorney, and a list of documents, arguing that they had no connection to foreign exchange augmentation.

The detaining authority defended the reliance on the mentioned documents, stating that they were not irrelevant and were part of the material considered for passing the detention order. The court examined the documents and found that the detaining authority had indeed relied on the documents mentioned by the petitioner. However, the court emphasized that the detaining authority must apply its mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, avoiding irrelevant information. Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that the detaining authority's reliance on irrelevant documents indicates a lack of application of mind, rendering the detention order illegal.

Referring to established legal principles, the court held that if the detaining authority considers irrelevant documents that do not provide evidence against the detainee, it signifies a casual and mechanical application of mind, contrary to legal requirements. Relying on precedents, the court concluded that in this case, the detaining authority had indeed relied on irrelevant documents, leading to a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.