2020 (2) TMI 627 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of detention order - COFEPOSA Act - Smuggling of Gold - it is submitted that there is no nexus or live link between the alleged illegal activity and purported claim of the Detaining Authority as the alleged illegal activity had been committed between January, 2014 and July, 2015 while the impugned order had been passed on 2nd August, 2019 - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the impugned detention order is based upon an alleged admission by the petitioner that he had financed smuggling of 185 Kgs. of gold valued at ₹ 52.35 crores between January, 2014 and July, 2015. Reliance can be placed in the case of UNION OF INDIA, JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA) , GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE VERSUS DIMPLE HAPPY DHAKAD 2019 (8) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective in nature and the Court cannot interfere with the order of detention by substituting its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority - this Court is of the view that the order of the Apex Court applies to the present case on all fours The present writ petition is allowed and the petitioner-detenue is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging detention order dated 2nd August, 2019 under COFEPOSA Act based on lack of nexus between alleged illegal activity and detention order, reliance on Supreme Court judgment quashing similar detention order, subjective nature of detaining authority's satisfaction, conspiracy to smuggle gold, interpretation of detention order based on alleged admission by petitioner financing smuggling of gold.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 2nd August, 2019, arguing that it was punitive and lacked a live link between the alleged illegal activity and the detaining authority's claim. The petitioner's counsel highlighted a Supreme Court judgment quashing a similar detention order due to the absence of a proximate link between the events and the detention order. The detention order was based on the petitioner's alleged involvement in smuggling gold between January 2014 and July 2015, but the order was passed nearly four years later, raising questions about the proximity of events.

2. The Union of India contended that the detaining authority's satisfaction is subjective, and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support this argument. The detention order was based on the petitioner's admission of abetting in smuggling 185 Kgs of gold valued at ?52.35 crores between January 2014 and July 2015, as confirmed by another individual's statement.

3. The High Court analyzed the grounds of detention, which were primarily centered around the petitioner's admission of financing the smuggling of gold. The court found that there was no proximate link between the events of January 2014 to July 2015 and the detention order passed nearly four years later. Citing the Supreme Court precedent, the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of the petitioner-detenue immediately if not wanted in any other case. Additionally, a related application was disposed of in light of the judgment passed in the main writ petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised, arguments presented, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and order the release of the petitioner-detenue.