9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 985 - HC - FEMADetention of petitioner - Prevention of smuggling of goods - Held that - Detaining authority, after passing the detention order dated 27th February, 1989 was indifferent in securing the detenu by not taking proper action with great caution. It further appears that the police authorities of the Respondent No.4 were also not prompt in their action in executing the said detention order and the execution of the said detention order was unduly delayed, which allowed the detenu to remain at large for a long period and has consequently defeated the very purpose of the impugned order. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay occurred in executing the order of detention after a lapse of abut 26 years. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of P.U. Iqbal (1991 (12) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT), the delay throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently renders the detention order bad and invalid because of the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed thereby setting at liberty the detenu forthwith - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
1. Delay in executing the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. Analysis: The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the order of detention dated 27th February, 1989, passed under the COFEPOSA Act to prevent smuggling activities. The detenu was detained after an unreasonable delay of about 26 years, leading to doubts about the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The core issue revolved around whether the delay in executing the detention order invalidated its purpose due to the significant lapse of time. The Petitioners challenged the delay in executing the detention order, arguing that the detaining authority failed to record subjective satisfaction for the prolonged delay, rendering the detention arbitrary and legally unsustainable. They contended that the live link between the detention order and its execution was severed due to the extensive delay, making the detention order redundant. The focus was on the immediate nature of preventive action under the COFEPOSA Act and whether the delay compromised the purpose of preventing smuggling activities. The Respondents opposed the Petition, justifying the delay by stating that the detenu intentionally evaded detention for over 25 years, leading to his declaration as an absconder. They argued that the preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was necessary to prevent future smuggling activities, emphasizing the detenu's deliberate evasion as a reason for the delay in executing the detention order. The Court analyzed the delay and the explanations provided by the authorities, concluding that the inordinate delay of 26 years in executing the detention order was unreasonable and unexplained. The Court found the authorities' conduct apathetic and the explanations lacking credibility. Relying on legal precedents, the Court emphasized that such delays cast doubts on the genuineness of the detaining authority's satisfaction, rendering the detention order invalid. The Court highlighted the need for prompt action in preventive detention cases to maintain the link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Petition, ordering the immediate release of the detenu, Mohammed Ali Vengadan, due to the unjustifiable delay in executing the detention order. The judgment underscored the importance of timely and vigilant actions in preventive detention cases to uphold the legality and effectiveness of such orders.
|
