9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act ) directed detention of Sunil V. Desai with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. The order of detention was served on May 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished. 2. The grounds, inter alia, recites that a consignment consisting of 4 packages weighing 446 kgs. arrived at Cargo Terminal of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Singapore on November 9, 1987. The goods were consigned to M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A Bill of Entry dated November 10, 1987 for clearance of the consignment in the name of M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., alongwith delivery orders from the consignors with an invoice from Vijay Bank and packing list, etc., was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be struck down as the representation made by the detenu to the Detaining Authority was not considered. The petition in para 6(CC) specifically raises a contention that the detenu was not intimated about the fate of the representation made on May 10, 1988 to the Detaining Authority. Mr. Karmali submitted that in case the representation was not considered by the Detaining Authority, then the order of detention cannot be sustained and continued detention of the detenu is illegal. In answer to the petition, K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India as the Detaining Authority has filed return sworn on July 29, 1988. With reference to the claim made by the detenu in para 6(CC) of the petition, it is averred as follows :- It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons :- (a) Rejection of representation made on May 10, 1988 from the detenu by the Central Government; (b) Rejection of representation dated May 18, 1988 from the detenu addressed to the Detaining Authority; and (c) Rejection of representation dated May 18, 1988 addressed to the Central Government." It is necessary to state at this juncture that the detenu had made two separate and independent representations on May 10, 1988 and May 18, 1988. The representation dated May 10, 1988 was against the impugned order of detention while the representation dated May 18, 1988 was seeking grant of order of parole on the ground that the father of the detenu was ill and required to be attended immediately. Now, on the submission made by Ghosh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted and proceeded to reject the request. The Detaining Authority has clearly failed to discharge the duties required to be carried out under the provisions of the Act in not examining the representation against the order of detention and passing appropriate orders thereon. From the perusal of the file, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has not considered or rejected the representation dated May 10, 1988 and the claim made in the return that it was rejected and merely not communicated due to inadvertence is incorrect. As the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the representation made from May 10, 1988 onwards, the continued detention cannot be sustained and the order of detention is required to be struck down. 4. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
