9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iwali gali, Karola Market, Naya Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur by an order of detention made under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign currency and also with a view to prevent him from engaging and keeping smuggled gold. The appellant was served with the grounds of detention by the Detaining Authority, Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. It had been stated therein that the appellant may make any representation to the Advisory Board against his detention. 4. In the grounds of detention it was inter alia stated that on the basis of the secret information received in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not supplied to him and unless the said documents are given to him it will not be possible for him to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention. In the second representation to the Secretary, Government of India dated 6th April, 1987 also the appellant while reiterating the same facts stated that even the house from where the alleged recovery of foreign currency and gold was made is not his residential premises but is the residence of his sister-in-law. The appellant also stated that he was innocent and he should be released forthwith by revoking the order of detention. The appellant also stated that the Detaining Authority supplied him the relevant documents and also the information asked for in his letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the order of confirmation of detention did not give any indication as to why the Government had specified or determined the maximum period of detention of one year. The detention order is, therefore, illegal. It had also been stated in the writ petition that there had been inordinate delay in considering the representation sent on 6th April, 1987 through the Superintendent of Jail to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government. The said representation was disposed of by the Central Government on 29th April, 1987 and as such there was delay of 23 days which had not been explained. This unusual delay in the disposal of the detenu's representation renders the order of detention bad. 8. A counter affidavit was filed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of the petitioner were before me but, I had not relied on all of those documents in forming my subjective satisfaction. I have relied only on those documents which are mentioned to be relied in the list of documents annexed with the grounds of detention." 9. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that in view of the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority, the respondent No. 2, that all the documents seized though placed before him, he did not rely on all of them in forming his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and as such the non-supply of those documents to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, cannot be said to amount to infringement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain who is the owner of the said house. The non-supply of the said documents had greatly handicapped the -appellant in making an effective representation against the grounds of detention served on him. 11. This submission of the learned counsel was tried to be repelled by the Additional Solicitor General by contending that in view of the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority, Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, that he did not consider those documents though the same were placed before him in forming his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and so non-supply of those documents along with the grounds of detention to the appellant did not vitiate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other objections raised against the order of detention. 13. It is pertinent to refer here to the decision of this Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and Ors. - 1980 (4) SCC 531 wherein it has been held that the right to be supplied the copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any undue delay flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention, because unless the former right is available, the latter cannot be meaningfully exercised. It has been further held that it is necessary for the valid continuance of detention that subject to Article 22(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
