9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gn Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The grounds of detention inter alia were that the respondent, Hasan Malabari and Abdul Latif Fakirmohmed were the members of the crew of a vessel that was engaged in smuggling of wrist watches and some other contraband articles worth Rs. 33,70,819,00. The respondent moved the High Court of Gujarat. A Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned order dated January 16, 1980 quashed the order of detention. The High Court found: "...the order of detention made against him (detenu) clearly shows that the detaining authority had not applied his mind to the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the Government of Gujarat hereby directs that the said A Shri lsmail Jumma Tangan Bando (be detained. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, Sd/- P.M. Shah Deputy Secretary to the Government (Annexure 'A')" 3. Both these orders were taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and were authenticated by Shri P. M. Shah, Deputy Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department (Special). These two orders were accompanied by the grounds of detention, a which have been filed before us as Annexure 'C'. Annexure 'C' is also dated August 1, 1979 and was taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, and authenticated by the same Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Shri Shah. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. The same preliminary objection was raised in State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya (supra), namely, that in view of the fact that the maximum period of detention mentioned in Section 10 of the Act had expired, the appeal had become infructuous The objection is covered by our aforesaid judgment. The additional argument advanced by Mr. Rana in this behalf was that once the maximum period prescribed by law was over, the order of detention was non est and there was no order by which the detenu could be put under fresh detention. The answer is once the order quashing the order of detention of the detenu is set aside by this Court, the order of the High Court rendering the order of detention non est itself becomes non est and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced before the Home Minister who "after careful consideration of the entire record has passed the impugned order of detention" and that he (Mr. Shah) "only authenticated the impugned order of detention in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India." As the order has been A taken in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and validly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary concerned, the order tentamounts to an order by the State Government of Gujarat. It therefore cannot be said that the order of detention was not passed by the competent authority.
7. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
