1986 (6) TMI 39 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of detention orders based on presumptions under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
2. Requirement to furnish documents referred to in the detention grounds for effective representation.
3. Impact of non-examination of bail order reasons on the validity of detention orders.
4. Relevance of assayer's certificate in the detention order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Detention Orders Based on Presumptions under Section 123 of the Customs Act:

The petitioner contended that the Government detained the individuals based on presumptions under Section 123 of the Customs Act without relevant supporting material. The Government, however, argued that the detention was based on relevant circumstances and materials. The court clarified that paragraph 14 of the grounds of detention did not indicate that the Government acted solely on the presumptions of Section 123 of the Customs Act but referred to the Customs Department's reliance on such presumptions. The court found no merit in the contention that the detention orders were based solely or mainly on presumptions and rejected this argument.

2. Requirement to Furnish Documents Referred to in the Detention Grounds for Effective Representation:

The petitioner argued that the failure to furnish documents referred to in the detention grounds violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as it hindered the detenus' ability to make an effective representation. The Government countered that the documents in question were not relied upon but merely referred to in passing and thus did not need to be supplied. The court examined the principles laid down in various Supreme Court cases, including Khudiram Das and Ummu Saleema, and concluded that only documents relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied. The court dissented from the views of the Bombay, Delhi, and Madras High Courts, which had held that even casually referred documents should be supplied upon request. The court held that non-supply of documents merely referred to in passing does not violate Article 22(5) and upheld the Government's stance.

3. Impact of Non-Examination of Bail Order Reasons on the Validity of Detention Orders:

The petitioner contended that the Government's failure to examine the reasons for granting bail to the detenus vitiated the detention orders. The Government argued that the reasons for bail were not material to the detention decision. The court noted that the Government had considered the terms and conditions of bail but found that the reasons for granting bail would not have influenced the detention decision. The court held that the failure to examine the reasons for bail did not vitiate the detention orders.

4. Relevance of Assayer's Certificate in the Detention Order:

In one of the petitions, the petitioner argued that the non-furnishing of the assayer's certificate of the gold seized from Ganesh vitiated the detention order against Selvaraj. The court found this contention to be without merit, stating that the assayer's certificate for Ganesh had no relevance to Selvaraj's detention order. Thus, the failure to supply the certificate did not affect the validity of the detention order against Selvaraj.

Conclusion:

All contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The court, however, granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, recognizing that the issue of non-supply of documents referred to in the grounds of detention when demanded is a substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.