9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vities Act, 1974 ( the COFEPOSA Act ). ( 2. ) FOR alleged commission of an offence on the part of the detenu under S.135 of the Customs Act on an allegation that common salt having been exported by misdeclaring it as high value 'G' salt a criminal proceeding was initiated against him. The said incident is said to have taken place on 10-2-2005. The detenu was arrested on 9-3-2005. He was released on bail on 7-4-2005. Indisputably, the detenu made two predetention representations, one on 23-5-2005 and another on 27-6-2005 whereafter the impugned order of detention was prepared. ( 3. ) IT is not in dispute that the order of detention was passed by the empowering authority being Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the respondents that no statement had been made therein to the effect that the detaining authority had also disposed of the representation made by the detenu although the State of Maharashtra did so by an order dated 2-5-2006. ( 6. ) TWO affidavits were filed on 26-9-2006, one affirmed by Sharad Balkrishna Pawaskar, Under Secretary, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra and another by Chandra Iyengar, Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The detaining authority, however, in its affidavit did not make any statement as regards rejection of the representation by the detenu. Thereafter, two affidavits have been affirmed on 7-10-2006, one by Chandra Iyengar, Principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was received in the section on 12-4-2006 at 5.20 p.m. Similarly representation dated 10-4-2006 was received in the Home Department on 12-4-2006 and the said representation was sent to the section concerned on 13-4-2006. 14-4-2006 was a holiday on account of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti. On 15-4-2006 the assistant concerned of the section submitted the proposal for approval to call for comments of the sponsoring authority. 16-4-2006 was a holiday i.e. Sunday. On 18-4-2006 I granted approval to call for remarks of the sponsoring authority and on the same date letter along with copy of the representation made by the petitioner was sent to the sponsoring authority. The comments of the sponsoring authority were received on 21-4-2006. 22nd and 23rd w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, we are of the opinion that the respondents have not been able to satisfactorily explain the delay caused in disposal of the representations made by the detenu. We say so for two reasons; firstly because the representations made by the detenu were required to be considered both by the detaining authority as also the State Government. They were, thus, required to be considered on their own merit upon application of independent mind on the part of the authorities concerned. If the Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra was not in possession of the original records, in our opinion, it was obligatory on his part to call for the records or requisition at least the xerox copies thereof from the office of the detaining authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
