2002 (3) TMI 46 - SC - Customs

Preventive detention Held that - The factum of non-placement of relevant documents, in our view, has had a serious effect and definite inroad to petitioner's liberty without application of mind. Non-placement of the order of payment of additional duty of ₹ 11,56,803/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order of the Commission has not only transgressed the rights of the petitioner but in our view speaks a volume about the conduct of the officials rendering the proceeding before the Detaining Authority vitiated and thus turned out to be illegal. On the question of representation, the records depict that the same was sent to the President of India on 10th April, 2001 and the same was sent to the Ministry of Finance on August 16, 2001 - some explanation has been put forth, but we need not, however, detain ourselves in dealing with the same since we wish to state that non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a serious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be declared unlawful and illegal and thus resultantly cannot be sustained. Thus the writ petition succeeds. The detention order stands quashed and set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Delay in passing the detention order.
3. Non-placement of relevant documents before the Detaining Authority.
4. Delayed consideration of the representation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the validity of preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It emphasizes that while law courts disfavor detention without trial, constitutional sanction for preventive detention is acknowledged due to prevailing social and economic conditions. The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that preventive detention orders conform to the guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The case in question challenges an order of detention under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act, contending that it infringes on the petitioner's fundamental rights by being without lawful authority.

2. The judgment scrutinizes the delay in passing the detention order. It notes a significant lapse of about seven months between the incident leading to detention and the actual issuance of the detention order. The petitioner argues that the charges had become stale and irrelevant due to this delay, questioning the validity of the detention based on such dated grounds. The court acknowledges the importance of timely action by the detaining authority and the need to avoid unreasonable delays in preventive detention cases.

3. Another crucial issue addressed in the judgment is the non-placement of relevant documents before the Detaining Authority. The court highlights the omission of crucial materials, including an application and an order from the Settlement Commission, which could have influenced the detention decision. This failure to present essential information before the Detaining Authority is deemed a serious lapse, rendering the detention order unlawful and illegal. The judgment underscores the necessity of fair play and justice in detention proceedings, emphasizing the obligation to provide all pertinent documents for a balanced decision-making process.

4. Lastly, the judgment examines the delayed consideration of the petitioner's representation. It references a previous case condemning even minor delays in processing representations in detention matters. The court criticizes the delay in forwarding the representation to higher authorities, highlighting the significance of timely review processes in preventive detention cases. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, quashing the detention order and ordering the immediate release of the individual in question.