2002 (5) TMI 850 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in passing the detention order.
2. Delay in execution of the detention order.
3. Unsigned grounds of detention.
4. Illegible documents supplied to the petitioner.
5. Suppression of relevant material from the Detaining Authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:

The petitioner argued that there was an undue delay in passing the detention order dated 10th August 2001, as the incident occurred on 6th February 2001. The respondents countered this by explaining that investigations continued after the incident, and the proposal, including non-bailable warrants, was sent to the Department on 12th June 2001. The Central Screening Committee approved the proposal on 25th June 2001, and the detention order was passed on 10th August 2001. The court noted that though there was some delay, it was not inordinate enough to vitiate the detention order. The delay was satisfactorily explained, and the nexus between the incident and the detention was not broken.

2. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:

The detention order dated 10th August 2001 was executed on 11th September 2001. The petitioner claimed that there was a delay in serving the order, while the respondents stated that the petitioner was not available for service. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Others and T.D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, which emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for any delay in executing the detention order. The court found that the respondents failed to provide specific details or particulars of efforts made to serve the order during August 2001. This unsatisfactory explanation led the court to conclude that there was undue delay in executing the order, thus vitiating the detention order.

3. Unsigned Grounds of Detention:

The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were unsigned, violating his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The respondents denied this, asserting that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the grounds of detention, which bore his dated signature. The court observed that while the last page of the grounds of detention was not signed, the petitioner had not been prejudiced by this omission. The grounds conveyed were accurate, and the petitioner made a representation based on them, which was considered. Therefore, the argument regarding unsigned grounds of detention failed.

4. Illegible Documents Supplied to the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that some documents supplied were illegible, preventing him from making an effective representation. The respondents denied this, stating that all documents relied upon were supplied and no document was withheld. The court noted that the petitioner failed to identify any specific illegible documents during submissions. Therefore, the argument regarding illegible documents was deemed vague and without merit.

5. Suppression of Relevant Material from the Detaining Authority:

The petitioner claimed that relevant material was suppressed from the Detaining Authority, specifically orders banning the import activities of certain companies involved in the illegal import. The court did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim and did not address it in detail in the judgment.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petitions, quashing the detention orders on the ground of undue delay in executing the detention order. The petitions were allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.