9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court. 3. Delay in passing the detention order. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Petition: The petitioner filed a writ petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing the detention order dated 17th September 1992, passed u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The respondents contended that only a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable for the release of the detenu. However, the court held that the petition was maintainable as it involved fundamental rights, especially the right to liberty, and should not be dismissed on technical grounds. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court: The respondents argued that the court at Delhi alone had jurisdiction as the offence was committed and proceedings initiated there. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, which was withdrawn. The court found that the petitioner had shifted his business to Ludhiana, received summons at his Ludhiana address, and had taken residential accommodation on rent there. Thus, the court held that the petition was rightly filed in its jurisdiction. 3. Delay in Passing the Detention Order: The petitioner contended that there was a delay of six months in passing the detention order, which cast doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court found that the explanation provided by the respondents for the delay was unsatisfactory. Citing precedents, the court held that the delay rendered the detention order unsustainable. Additionally, the detention order against a co-accused on similar grounds had already been quashed, and to maintain parity, the impugned order was also quashed. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order dated 17.9.1992, annexure P-15, on the grounds of delay and to maintain parity with the co-accused.
|
