9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Delay in passing the order of detention
The High Court of Bombay heard a case where the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department issued an order for the detention of the petitioner under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grounds for detention included the recovery of gold bars from an unaccompanied baggage consignment linked to the petitioner. The detaining authority passed the order on April 11, 1988, almost ten months after the initial incident on June 24, 1987. The petitioner argued that the delay in passing the order without a reasonable explanation rendered it invalid. The detaining authority's explanation for the delay was deemed unsatisfactory by the court. The court highlighted the timeline of events, including the recording of statements, search operations, and approval processes, to emphasize the unjustifiable delay in passing the detention order. As a result, the court quashed the impugned order of detention and directed the immediate release of the detenu, with no costs imposed. In the detailed analysis, the court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that an order of detention can only be justified if there is an imminent risk of the detenu engaging in smuggling activities. The court found merit in the argument that the significant delay of almost ten months between the recovery of gold bars and the passing of the detention order raised doubts about the necessity and validity of the order. Despite recognizing that delay alone may not invalidate the order, the court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable explanation for such delays. The court scrutinized the timeline presented by the detaining authority, which revealed a series of procedural delays in forwarding recommendations, conducting searches, and obtaining approvals. The court noted the lack of justification for the delays, including a two-month gap between the Screening Committee meeting and the submission of the proposal to the detaining authority. The court concluded that the order of detention was passed after an unjustifiable delay, lacking a reasonable explanation, leading to the decision to quash the order and release the detenu immediately.
|
