9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in considering representation. 2. Non-placement of reply to the show-cause notice before the detaining authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Considering Representation: The petitioner detenu challenged the legality of his detention on the grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay in considering his representation dated February 20, 1989. The representation was submitted through the Superintendent, Sabarmati Central Prison, on February 21, 1989, and was decided and rejected on March 28, 1989. The petitioner argued that this delay rendered his continued detention illegal and void. (a) The delay from February 22, 1989, to March 8, 1989, was explained by the detaining authority and the sponsoring authority. The representation was received by the Additional Chief Secretary on February 22, 1989, and was sent to the Collector of Customs for comments. The Collector forwarded it to the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, who submitted his reply on March 8, 1989. The Collector was on tour from March 8 to March 16, 1989, and upon his return, he sent the papers back to the detaining authority, who decided the representation on March 28, 1989. The period between March 17, 1989, and March 28, 1989, included holidays on March 19, 22, 24, 25, and 26, leaving only a few working days, which were satisfactorily explained. (b) The delay from February 22, 1989, to March 8, 1989, was further explained by an affidavit from Mr. V.K. Gajjar, Inspector of Customs, COFEPOSA. The file was put up before the Deputy Collector on February 27, 1989, who required further inquiry into the detenu's financial condition. The inquiry was completed, and the report was received on March 8, 1989. The explanation was deemed satisfactory. (c) The representation was examined, revealing that it primarily requested mercy based on the detenu's financial condition and family sufferings. The inquiry into the financial condition was justified, showing the department's concern for sympathetic consideration. The detaining authority considered all material, including the representation and comments from the Sponsoring Authority, before rejecting the representation. (d) The petitioner cited a High Court decision where an unexplained delay of eleven days led to the quashing of detention. However, this case was fact-specific and did not establish a general principle applicable here. 2. Non-placement of Reply to the Show-cause Notice Before the Detaining Authority: The petitioner contended that his reply to the show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 79 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, was not placed before the detaining authority, vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The reply was submitted to the Additional Collector of Customs, not the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) who issued the show-cause notice. Given that there are multiple Additional Collectors of Customs, the reply may not have reached the relevant officer. Thus, the contention that the reply was not considered by the detaining authority fails, as the submission of the reply to the incorrect authority nullifies the argument. Conclusion: The petition was rejected, and the rule was discharged. The court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments regarding delay in considering the representation and the non-placement of the reply to the show-cause notice before the detaining authority.
|
