9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to detention order under Article 226 and Section 482 CPC, reliance on irrelevant material for passing detention order.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the order passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act to prevent prejudicial actions related to foreign exchange augmentation. 2. The judgment highlighted that the petition could be allowed on a short ground, despite various grounds raised for challenging the order. 3. The detaining authority relied on a statement of Shri Krishan Kumar Aggarwal while passing the detention order, as mentioned in the Grounds of Detention served on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner argued that the statement of Krishan Kumar Aggarwal did not mention any prejudicial activity by the petitioner, questioning the relevance of the document relied upon by the detaining authority. 5. The counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, who passed the detention order, defended the reliance on the statement by stating that the passport of Krishan Kumar Aggarwal was integral to the statement. However, it failed to establish the relevance of the statement to the petitioner's activities. 6. Citing the case of Smt. Shalini Soni versus Union of India, the judgment emphasized the obligation of decision-makers to consider pertinent and proximate matters only, avoiding irrelevant material in reaching subjective satisfaction for detention orders. 7. Referring to the case of Diwan Singh Verma versus Union of India & others, where reliance on irrelevant documents led to the quashing of a detention order, the judgment reiterated that non-application of mind by the detaining authority could vitiate the detention order. 8. Based on the above precedents, the court held that the detention order in the present case was flawed due to the reliance on irrelevant material, indicating a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authority. 9. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the rule was made absolute, the detention order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be set at liberty, unless required in any other case, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
