9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA based on delay in passing the order and lack of nexus between activities and purpose of detention. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged a detention order under COFEPOSA, contending that the long delay in passing the order had severed the nexus between the alleged activity and the purpose of detention. The petitioner was intercepted at the airport with a significant amount of foreign currency, leading to subsequent legal actions and eventual detention. The petitioner argued that the delay in passing the order, until several months after the incident, indicated an unnecessary detention lacking proper justification. Reference was made to a previous court decision supporting the quashing of detention orders issued after prolonged delays in similar circumstances. 2. The State, represented by the Deputy Secretary, countered the petitioner's arguments by explaining the timeline and process leading to the detention order. It was clarified that the delay was due to administrative procedures, including the transfer of documents between authorities. The State asserted that the delay was reasonable, considering the time taken for the execution of the order after its issuance. The State emphasized the nexus between the alleged activity and the purpose of detention, justifying the delay in passing the order based on thorough consideration and procedural requirements. 3. The court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It noted the significant delay in passing the detention order, which occurred months after the incident and even after the petitioner had been granted bail. The court found that the Detaining Authority had not provided sufficient justification for the delay, especially considering that no new material had emerged necessitating the detention order beyond what was already known at the time of the incident. The court concluded that the delay in passing the order indicated a lack of nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention, ultimately leading to the quashing of the detention order. 4. In the final judgment, the court allowed the writ petition, making the rule absolute, and quashed the detention order dated 8-10-1992. The decision was based on the court's finding that the delay in passing the order, without adequate justification or new evidence, rendered the detention order illegal and void. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining a reasonable nexus between alleged activities and the purpose of detention to uphold the legality and validity of such orders under COFEPOSA.
|
