2013 (11) TMI 1738 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of vital documents by the sponsoring authority.
2. Non-consideration of the show cause notice by the detaining authority.
3. Delay in passing and executing the detention order.
4. Advisory Board's consideration of additional documents.
5. Opportunity to adduce evidence before the Advisory Board.

Summary:

1. Suppression of Vital Documents:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not consider the bail order from Andhra Pradesh, which had conditions that could have prevented the detenu from engaging in prejudicial activities. The Court found that the conditions in the bail order did not prevent the detenu from continuing illegal activities and thus, the bail order was not a crucial document that could render the detention order unconstitutional.

2. Non-Consideration of Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated 2.5.2013 was not placed before the detaining authority. The Court examined the relevance of the show cause notice and concluded that it only summarized materials already available in the files considered by the detaining authority. Therefore, the omission of this document did not affect the validity of the detention order.

3. Delay in Passing and Executing the Detention Order:
The petitioner claimed there was an inordinate delay in issuing and executing the detention order. The Court reviewed the explanation provided by the respondents, which detailed the procedural steps and efforts to locate the detenu. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and held that the delay did not invalidate the detention order.

4. Advisory Board's Consideration of Additional Documents:
The petitioner argued that the Advisory Board considered the show cause notice, which was not before the detaining authority. The Court noted that u/s 8(c) of the COFEPOSA Act, the Advisory Board is empowered to call for additional information. Since the show cause notice was served to both the detenu and his advocate, the Court found no violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Opportunity to Adduce Evidence Before the Advisory Board:
The petitioner claimed that the detenu was not allowed to adduce oral evidence before the Advisory Board. The Court observed that there was no specific averment or evidence that a request to adduce evidence was made and denied by the Advisory Board. Therefore, the Court did not accept this contention.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The detention order was upheld as valid and constitutional.