9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act. 2. Delay in passing the order of detention. 3. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority and lack of subjective satisfaction due to the case being a solitary incident. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Non-compliance with Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act The petitioner argued that the State Government did not submit the report about the detention to the Central Government within ten days as required by Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act. The State Government, however, stated in its affidavit that the report was forwarded to the Central Government on 5-2-1991, within the stipulated period. The petitioner contended that it was not enough to show that the report was forwarded; it must also be shown that the report was received by the Central Government within ten days. The court noted that Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act only requires the report to be forwarded within ten days, not necessarily received. The court found no non-compliance with Section 3(2) and rejected the petitioner's contention. Issue 2: Delay in passing the order of detention The petitioner contended that there was an eight-month delay in passing the detention order, which indicated a lack of promptitude. The court examined the timeline: the gold pieces were seized on 13-6-1990, the proposal for detention was initiated on 23-8-1990, approved on 27-8-1990, and the detention order was issued on 4-2-1991. The court acknowledged some unexplained delays but emphasized that delay in passing the detention order is not necessarily fatal unless it makes the grounds stale, illusory, or snaps the live-link between the grounds and the order. The court found that the delay did not render the grounds stale or illusory and did not snap the live-link. Therefore, the delay did not vitiate the detention order. Issue 3: Non-application of mind by the detaining authority and lack of subjective satisfaction The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and lacked subjective satisfaction because the case involved a solitary incident. The court noted that a solitary incident could justify a detention order if it showed the potential for future smuggling activities. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in smuggling gold pieces for monetary consideration and his frequent travels to India indicated a likelihood of future smuggling activities. The court emphasized that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, unless shown to be unwarranted or perverse, should not be interfered with. The court concluded that the detaining authority's inference was neither unwarranted nor perverse and upheld the detention order. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner. The order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was upheld.
|
