9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to quash the detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner was apprehended at the airport with hidden gold in an electric iron in January 1990. He was released on bail in February 1990, and the detention order was passed in May 1990. The petitioner argued that the delay in passing the detention order indicated non-application of mind and unnecessary continued detention. The counter-affidavit filed did not adequately explain the delay in passing the order. The additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Delhi Administration, mentioned the timeline of events leading to the detention order. However, the reasons for the delay were not clear, and the petitioner was on bail during this period. The court noted that the detention order was served on the petitioner almost four months after it was passed, and it was served only after the petitioner had surrendered. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in executing the detention order and questioned the lack of efforts to serve the order while the petitioner was on bail. The Union of India cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the test of proximity in detention orders. The court acknowledged that a reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention could overlook the delay. However, in this case, the court found that there was no additional material necessitating the detention order beyond what was available at the time of the petitioner's arrest. The court held that the respondents failed to adequately explain the delay in passing the detention order, even after a significant period had elapsed since the petitioner's arrest. Ultimately, the court made the Rule absolute, quashed the detention order dated 23.5.1990, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner unless required in any other case. The detention order was set aside, emphasizing the lack of justification for the delay and the absence of new grounds for detention beyond the initial arrest circumstances.
|
