1999 (8) TMI 93 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition at the pre-execution stage.
3. Legality and validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act.
4. Grounds for detention and their connection to the statutory objectives.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The respondents argued that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, suggesting that the writ should be maintainable either in Mumbai or Delhi where the currency was seized or the detention order was passed. The petitioner countered by highlighting that searches were conducted at their residences in Jalandhar and Chandigarh, thus part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. The court held that since the Union of India (UOI) itself conducted searches in Jalandhar and Chandigarh, part of the cause of action did indeed arise within this court's jurisdiction. The court distinguished the present case from other cited cases and concluded that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition at Pre-execution Stage:
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable at the pre-execution stage, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Parasmal Rampuria. However, the court referred to the guidelines from the Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia, which allow for pre-execution challenges if the detention order is passed on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant grounds, among other reasons. The court emphasized that if the detenu can show that the detention order is prima facie illegal, they should not be compelled to surrender before challenging it. The court thus rejected the second preliminary objection, maintaining that the writ petition was legally maintainable at the pre-execution stage.

3. Legality and Validity of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal, unconstitutional, and based on irrelevant and vague grounds. The court examined the provisions of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, which allows for preventive detention to conserve or augment foreign exchange. The court noted that the detention order was passed hastily on the same day the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application for cancellation of bail. The court observed that the detention order seemed to lack a rational connection to the statutory objectives and appeared to be passed without proper application of mind, especially given that adjudication proceedings were still pending.

4. Grounds for Detention and Their Connection to Statutory Objectives:
The petitioner contended that the grounds for detention were vague and irrelevant, with the adjudication proceedings yet to determine the legality of the currency possession. The court found that the detention order did not adequately justify how the alleged act of smuggling was prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange. The court emphasized that preventive detention should be used to prevent future prejudicial activities, not to punish past actions. Given that the adjudication and criminal proceedings were still pending, the court concluded that the detention order was not justified and was passed in a mechanical manner without proper consideration of the facts.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the detention order dated 17-11-1998, holding that it was passed hastily and without proper application of mind. The court emphasized that the quashment of the detention order would not affect the ongoing criminal complaint and adjudication proceedings. The petition was thus allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.