2007 (8) TMI 794 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention under COFEPOSA.
2. Validity of the notice u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA.
3. Whether non-supply of reasons with the notice u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA vitiates the proceedings.

Summary:

1. Legality of the detention under COFEPOSA:
The respondent No. 1 was detained on December 19, 1974, under MISA, and the detention was continued u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA for illegal dealings in foreign exchange. The respondent challenged the detention order but was unsuccessful, and his habeas corpus petition was dismissed. The learned single Judge upheld the Division Bench's decision, affirming the legality of the detention order.

2. Validity of the notice u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA:
While in custody, the respondent No. 1 was served with a notice dated March 4, 1977, u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA. The respondent's wife replied on his behalf, and after his release, the respondent reiterated the same contentions. The competent authority issued a reasoned order on November 27, 1989, which was partly upheld by the Appellate Authority. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the SAFEMA notice and the subsequent orders. The learned single Judge quashed the notice and consequential orders due to the initial non-supply of reasons.

3. Non-supply of reasons with the notice u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA:
The Union of India appealed, arguing that the reasons were eventually supplied, and the respondent was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The Court noted that the provisions of Section 6(1) of SAFEMA do not specifically require the supply of reasons with the notice. The delayed supply of reasons did not vitiate the proceedings as the respondent was afforded opportunities to respond and defend himself. The Court found that the nexus between the properties and the alleged illegal activities was established, and the respondent failed to provide a plausible explanation for the remaining items.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the show cause notice and consequential orders was set aside. The Court held that the delayed supply of reasons did not invalidate the proceedings, and the respondent's properties were rightly confiscated u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA. The order of detention under COFEPOSA was upheld as lawful.