9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about 20 days has not at all been explained, least satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. It has further not been explained in the said affidavit that why it took 20 days for effecting the verification of the identity and the address of the Petitioner and the detenu. The affidavit is totally silent on this aspect. - The affidavit is also silent on this aspect and the delay of 6 days is remained unexplained. Thus, there is in all 31 days delay, which has not at all been explained, least satisfactorily explained at the instance of the Additional Chief Secretary i.e. the Respondent No.2. It is also clear from the record that there is unsatisfactory explained delay of about 21 days i.e. from 12th December, 2014 to 2nd January 2015 at the behest of the sponsoring authority in forwarding the parawise comments to the detaining authority and according to us the said delay has not at all been satisfactorily explained by the sponsoring authority. - breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India at the behest of the Respondents has rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal. We are therefore of the view that the delay as stated herein above is not satisfacto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anvel. That Red Sanders is a natural resource covered under CITES (Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna), export of which is prohibited under the EXIM Policy. It was further revealed in the investigation that the detenu indulged into handling the task of storage of Red Sanders at discrete locations around Navi Mumbai and stuffing thereof in export containers at such locations for shipment through Nhava Sheva port in the guise of onions under third party IECs. That the detenu had also taken on rent a warehouse at village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel which was used for storage of Red Sanders and for filling the same in the export containers. The investigation also revealed that the detenu was closely associated with persons viz. Santosh Pandurang Patil, Ajay Kumar Sharma @ Manish Verma and others and was instrumental in storage of all consignments of Red Sanders that were dispatched from Delhi and received by Ajay Kumar Sharma at Bhiwandi and Kalamboli. It was further revealed that the detenu himself was instrumental in shipment of four container loads of Red Sanders in the past to U.A.E. under the guise of onions. That after taking into con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity at the first instance and secondly at the instance of the Additional Chief Secretary i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein. With respect to the delay which has occurred at the instance of the detaining authority, it has been stated that as per the record the representation dated 3rd December, 2014 submitted by Sangeetha Kirti Patel on behalf of the detenu addressed to the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra was received by the office of the detaining authority on 8th December, 2014. It is further stated that as paragraph Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the representation were pertaining to the sponsoring authority and as the comments of the sponsoring authority were necessary, parawise comments on those points were called by letter dated 9th December, 2014. That the said letter dated 9th December, 2014 was received by the office of the sponsoring authority on 12th December, 2014. It is further averred that as the name of Sangeetha Kirti Patel stated to be wife of the detenu was not known to the sponsoring authority, the premises mentioned in the representation and claimed to be the residence of the detenu was visited by the officers of the sponsorin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director, DRI in his affidavit dated 20th March, 2015 while explaining the delay caused at their instance while forwarding the parawise comments to the detaining authority and the Additional Chief Secretary in response to ground Nos.6(f) and (g) of the Petition has stated that the representation dated 2nd December, 2014 was made by Sangeetha Kirti Patel, claimed to be the wife of the detenu and a copy thereof was received by the sponsoring authority on 12th December, 2014 calling for the parawise comments. That as the name of Sangeetha Kirti Patel stated to be wife of the detenu was not known to the sponsoring authority, the premises mentioned in the representation and claimed to be the residence of the detenu was visited by the officers of the detaining authority on 2nd January, 2015 for causing necessary verifications regarding authenticity of the person and her relation with the detenu. That statement of Sangeetha Kirti Patel was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein she admitted that she was not in possession of any original document in support of her claim to be legally married to the detenu. That the said facts are incorporated in the parawise comments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with respect to the spacious plea which has been taken by the sponsoring authority que the holidays which were intervening in forwarding the reply / comments is concerned, has observed in paragraph No.13 as under:- We have noticed that in may cases, holidays are cited as reason for delay. This has become routine. What has been lost sight of is the fact that the detenu continues to be incarcerated without trial even on holidays. The mere fact that four holidays intervened still does not justify the delay in considering and communicating the decision on the representation. If indeed the mandate of Supreme Court is to be honestly carried out by the Authority, the Authority should endeavour to prepare themselves to deal with such representation more expeditiously in the interest of upholding the law. It is pertinent to note here that though the sponsoring authority was well aware about the view taken by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.4618 of 2014, in case of the co-detenu that it has taken a judicial notice of the plea with respect to holidays is concerned, the sponsoring authority did not bother to take its note and improve upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y between 12th December, 2014 and 2nd January, 2015 of about 20 days has not at all been explained, least satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. It has further not been explained in the said affidavit that why it took 20 days for effecting the verification of the identity and the address of the Petitioner and the detenu. The affidavit is totally silent on this aspect. 13. It is further to be noted here that why it took 25 days i.e. from 8th December, 2014 till 2nd January, 2015 by the office of Additional Chief Secretary to receive the parawise comments from the sponsoring authority has not at all been mentioned by the affiant. It is also pertinent to note here that the detaining authority by its letter dated 8th December, 2014 had already called for the parawise comments from the sponsoring authority and in that event, what was necessity for the Additional Chief Secretary to again call for the remarks has also not been explained in the said affidavit. It is further pertinent to note here that why it required 6 days by the new Additional Chief Secretary to discuss the matter with the concerned authorities i.e. from 1st January, 2015 on which he assumed the charge t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
