9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 2. Non-supply of documents in the language known to the detenu. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority: The petitioner contended that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind. The order invoked Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, but the grounds of detention and affidavit-in-opposition contained different reasons for detention. The grounds served on the detenu mentioned that the detention was to prevent activities prejudicial to public interest, which is not a permissible ground under COFEPOSA. The affidavit-in-opposition stated the detention was to prevent smuggling activities prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange. This inconsistency indicated a lack of coherent reasoning and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court referenced previous judgments, including Anup Kumar Ghosh v. Union of India and Manick Saha v. State of West Bengal, to support the argument that differing grounds in the detention order, grounds of detention, and affidavit-in-opposition show non-application of mind. 2. Non-supply of documents in the language known to the detenu: The petitioner, who only knew Bengali, was not provided with certain documents in Bengali, despite repeatedly requesting them. The detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was violated as the documents were essential for making an effective representation against the detention. The court emphasized that the constitutional requirement mandates that all relevant documents must be supplied in a language understood by the detenu. The court cited the case of Jamat Ali Mondal v. Union of India, which held that the detaining authority must ensure the detenu comprehends the grounds of detention to make an effective representation. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the documents were not necessary or that the detenu knew English, as the detenu had signed the receipt of grounds in English. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the detention order was passed by the State of Bihar. However, the court held that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, it had jurisdiction since the detenu was detained in Siliguri Jail within its territorial limits. The court noted that the detenu's continuous detention in Siliguri Jail constituted a part of the cause of action. The court referenced several precedents, including Mussummat Chand Kour v. Pratap Singh and Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, to support its jurisdiction. The court concluded that since the detenu was still detained in Siliguri Jail, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, making the writ application maintainable. Conclusion: The court found merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding non-application of mind and non-supply of documents in the language known to the detenu. It held that the detention order was invalid due to these procedural lapses and directed the release of the detenu through a writ of Habeas Corpus. The court also affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. The release order was to be communicated to the respondent by special messenger at the cost of the petitioner.
|
