2017 (11) TMI 162 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenging the detention order - offence under under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act - Held that - With the ground already having been considered and rejected by the Court which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, it is not possible for this Court to permit the Petitioner to again urge the same ground for questioning the same detention order. As regards the representation made by the Petitioner on 6th September, 2017 not having been considered and rejected by the Detaining Authority, the Court does not appreciate how this affects the validity of the detention order dated 10th October, 2016. Although it would be open to the Petitioner to make repeated representations, the ground on which the representation was made was only that the co-detenue s detention had been quashed. That ground was, for reasons already noted, not available to the Petitioner. As regards the delay in the detention order being served on the husband of the Petitioner, the counsel for the Petitioner was unable to explain what prevented the Petitioner from urging this ground when the earlier writ petition was filed. Even in the additional affidavit filed, there has been no explanation why such a ground could not have been urged earlier. Unless the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner was prevented for some valid reason from urging such ground, it will not be open to the Petitioner to have a second round of litigation to question the same detention order when the first round of challenge has ended in dismissal of a writ petition. As regards the acquittal of Mr. Raju Arora for the offences under Section 174 and 175 of IPC, the Court does not think it provides the Petitioner with any valid ground to challenge the impugned detention order. The Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out any ground for a second shot at challenging the detention order dated 10th October, 2016. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Impleadment of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3
- Quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act
- Dismissal of earlier writ petition and SLP by Supreme Court
- Representation to revoke detention order based on co-detenu's quashed detention
- Acquittal of detenu for IPC offences
- Delay in executing detention order
- Grounds for challenging detention order in second petition

Impleadment of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3:
The application for impleadment of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3 in the petition is allowed by the Court.

Quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner sought to quash a detention order dated 10th October 2016 under the COFEPOSA Act to prevent smuggling activities by her husband. This was the second petition filed for the same cause after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by a Division Bench of the Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Dismissal of earlier writ petition and SLP by Supreme Court:
The Court noted the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by a Division Bench and the subsequent dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, indicating a prior legal challenge to the detention order.

Representation to revoke detention order based on co-detenu's quashed detention:
A representation was made to the detaining authority after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, citing the quashing of the co-detenu's detention order as a ground to revoke the detenu's detention. However, this representation was rejected by the Director General, CEIB.

Acquittal of detenu for IPC offences:
The detenu was acquitted for IPC offences by the ACMM on the grounds of failure to serve summons personally, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Delay in executing detention order:
The petitioner highlighted a delay in executing the detention order, stating a lapse of more than 39 days between the order date and actual service, questioning the live connection between alleged activities and the need for detention.

Grounds for challenging detention order in second petition:
The petitioner raised multiple grounds for challenging the detention order in the second petition, including the representation rejection, acquittal for IPC offences, delay in execution, and treatment disparity with the co-detenu. However, the Court found no valid grounds for a second challenge and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.