9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act regarding the timing of reporting to the Central Government. Analysis: 1. The petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, to prevent him from abetting smuggling of goods. The challenge to the detention was based on the contention that the detention order was void due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. The critical issue was whether the report to the Central Government had to be sent within 10 days of the order being made on November 23, 1984, or the date the formal order was drawn up on December 1, 1984. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the report should have been sent by December 2, 1984, as the order was made on November 23, 1984. However, the report was sent on December 5, 1984, thereby violating the mandatory provision of Section 3(2) of the Act. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the mandatory nature of the provisions, especially in the context of potential revocation of the detention order by the Central Government. 3. The respondent's counsel contended that the order mentioned in Section 3(2) referred to the formal order coming into existence after the Administrator's acceptance of the detention proposal, not the date of making the order. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that making an order and drawing up a formal order are distinct actions. The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act to support the view that the report to the Central Government should have been sent within 10 days of the actual order being made. 4. The court further clarified that the date of making the order by the Administrator, not the date of drawing up the formal order, is crucial for compliance with Section 3(2) of the Act. The Legislature's intention was evident in providing a specific timeline for reporting to ensure expeditious communication to the Central Government. The court noted that the confusion arose because the Administration considered the date of drawing up the formal order as the date of making the order, leading to the violation of the mandatory reporting requirement. 5. Based on the analysis and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court quashed the petitioner's detention, ordering immediate release unless detained under a valid order. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in detention cases under the Act to safeguard individual rights and prevent arbitrary detentions.
|
