2014 (3) TMI 1129 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of Segregation - validity of detention order - the petitioner had submitted that the grounds of detention in the present case are composite and not separate - Held that - A single act might be sufficient to sustain an order of detention and it cannot be held that one single act could never constitute basis for a detention order - The principle of segregation of grounds is clearly applicable and paragraphs 37, 38, 41, etc. of the detention order relating to Pooran Chand Sharma can be segregated and treated as separate ground of detention and it is not the case of one composite ground but rather a case of multiplicity of grounds. Therefore, the detention order can be sustained with reference to other grounds. The Central Government had independently applied their mind and representation has been rejected by the Secretary. The Joint Secretary, the detaining authority, might have given their comments but this would not affect or invalidate the consideration and application of mind by the Secretary on behalf of the Central Government, who is superior and a higher officer. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA.
2. Failure to supply relied upon documents.
3. Examination of the seized documents and non-application of mind.
4. Segregation of grounds under Section 5A of COFEPOSA.
5. Consideration of representations by the Central Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 23rd September 2009, issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the detention was unjustified. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the execution of the detention order, and the petitioner had concealed himself to obstruct its execution until he was finally detained on 18th October 2013.

2. Failure to Supply Relied Upon Documents:
The petitioner argued that there was a failure to supply documents relied upon in the statement of Pooran Chand Sharma recorded on 3rd September 2009. The petitioner contended that the failure to supply these documents violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, depriving him of the right to make an effective representation. The detaining authority had invoked Article 22(6) and claimed privilege from communicating the search details, stating that the investigation was at a nascent stage and against public interest to supply all seizure details.

3. Examination of the Seized Documents and Non-application of Mind:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to examine the documents mentioned in Pooran Chand Sharma's statement, which were relevant and material. The counter affidavit asserted that only the statement of Pooran Chand Sharma and related documents were considered, not the seized documents. However, the court found that the detention order explicitly mentioned that all seizure details were not supplied in public interest, indicating that the documents were indeed considered. The failure to examine these documents showed non-application of mind, prejudicing the petitioner.

4. Segregation of Grounds under Section 5A of COFEPOSA:
Despite the issues with the documents related to Pooran Chand Sharma, the court held that the detention order could be upheld on other grounds by applying the principle of segregation under Section 5A of COFEPOSA. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General for India & Ors. Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors., which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A, allowing detention orders to be sustained even if one ground is invalid, provided there are other valid grounds.

5. Consideration of Representations by the Central Government:
The petitioner argued that the Central Government erred in relying on the comments of the Joint Secretary, the detaining authority, while considering his representations. The court found this contention without merit, stating that the Central Government had independently applied its mind, and the Secretary, a higher officer, had rejected the representation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention order despite the issues with the documents related to Pooran Chand Sharma. The principle of segregation allowed the detention order to be sustained based on other valid grounds. The court found no merit in the contention regarding the Central Government's consideration of the representations. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →