9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the detention order. Analysis: The High Court of Delhi heard and disposed of several writ petitions challenging a detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was issued against the petitioner to prevent engagement in smuggling activities. The petitioner's godown was searched, resulting in the recovery of foreign silver ingots, Indian currency, and incriminating documents. The petitioner admitted to the seizure in a voluntary statement. Subsequently, while in judicial custody, the impugned detention order was served on the petitioner, who alleged that the detaining authority relied on irrelevant and illegible documents. The petitioner contested the detention primarily on the grounds of the alleged reliance on irrelevant and illegible documents by the detaining authority. The petitioner claimed that certain documents supplied were irrelevant and illegible, thus indicating a lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. However, during the proceedings, it was established that the documents supplied were both in Hindi and English and were legible. The petitioner specifically challenged the relevance of documents listed at Serial Nos. 22, 24, 28, 31, and 36. The Court was presented with arguments from both sides regarding the relevance of the documents considered by the detaining authority. The petitioner's counsel contended that the detaining authority mechanically signed the detention order without proper application of mind, as the documents in question were irrelevant to the petitioner's alleged smuggling activities. Conversely, the Union of India's counsel argued that the detaining authority had properly scrutinized the documents to arrive at a subjective satisfaction and that the documents did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. The Court analyzed various precedents and held that the detention order was vitiated due to the detaining authority relying on irrelevant material, indicating a lack of application of mind. The Court concluded that the detention order was passed mechanically and declared the detention illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the rule was made absolute, and the detenu was ordered to be released unless required in any other case.
|
