9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order based on non-disposal of representation made by detenu's wife to the central government. Analysis: The writ petition filed under Article 32 challenges the detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The challenge is primarily based on the non-disposal of a representation made by the detenu's wife to the central government. The detenu's wife claimed to have sent the representation by Speed Post to the Secretary to the central government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, on 8/6/1999. The central government initially denied receiving the representation, leading to the court directing the petitioner to file an additional affidavit with supporting documents. The documents included a Consumer Receipt showing the representation sent by Speed Post on 8/6/1999 and a letter from the Speed Post Centre confirming delivery to the addressee on 9/6/1999. The central government, in its counter affidavit, maintained that the representation was not received in the central Registry of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. However, the detenu's wife's affidavit, supported by documentary evidence and legal provisions, countered this denial. The detenu's wife's submission and the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act create a presumption that the representation was received by the addressee, especially since the postal authorities confirmed delivery to the addressee on 9/6/1999. The court emphasized that a mere denial by the Union of India, without substantial evidence to the contrary, cannot be accepted. The court highlighted the violation of the detenu's right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution due to the non-disposal of the representation by the government. Consequently, the continued detention of the petitioner was deemed unlawful. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the order of detention dated 29/4/1999 was set aside. The court directed the immediate release of the petitioner unless detention was necessary in connection with another case.
|
