1999 (4) TMI 646 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Infraction of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA.
2. Non-consideration of representation by the Central Government.
3. Delay in disposing of the representation.
4. Additional grounds not raised in the High Court.
5. Application of mind by the Detaining Authority.

Summary:

1. Infraction of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA:
The appellant contended that the grounds of detention served on 30.3.94, instead of within 5 days from the order of detention on 25.3.94, violated Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA. The Court held that the day of the order (25.3.94) should be excluded in computing the 5-day period, thus serving the grounds on 30.3.94 did not constitute an infraction. This interpretation aligns with the precedent set in Haru Das Gupta v. The State of West Bengal.

2. Non-consideration of representation by the Central Government:
The appellant argued that the Central Government was obligated to consider a representation addressed to the Advisory Board, citing Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 11 of COFEPOSA. The Court distinguished this case from Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala, noting that the representation was directed to the Advisory Board, not the Central Government. Furthermore, the appellant did submit a representation to the Central Government on 22.6.94, which was disposed of on 12.7.95. Thus, the High Court rightly rejected this contention.

3. Delay in disposing of the representation:
The appellant claimed that the delay in disposing of the representation (from 22.6.94 to 12.7.95) vitiated the detention. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of the delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Given the Central Government's explanation in its counter-affidavit, the Court found no inordinate delay, and the High Court's rejection of this contention was justified.

4. Additional grounds not raised in the High Court:
The appellant introduced two additional grounds in the Supreme Court: the delay in serving the grounds of detention and the alleged lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority. The Court declined to consider these grounds as they involved factual inquiries not suitable for the Supreme Court to undertake. Moreover, the Court found no substance in these grounds, noting that the statutory time limit for serving grounds of detention was met, and the expression "as soon as may be" should be read in conjunction with "but ordinarily not later than 5 days."

5. Application of mind by the Detaining Authority:
The appellant argued that the Detaining Authority did not apply its mind while rejecting the representation. The Court noted that this contention was not raised in the High Court, and the mere perusal of the order's operative part was insufficient to conclude a lack of application of mind. The Court would have required the entire file to assess this claim, which was not appropriate at this stage.

Conclusion:
All contentions raised by the appellant were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.