9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods other wise than by engaging in transporting or concealing goods in future. Along with the detention order the grounds of detention were also supplied to the petitioner. 2. The facts germane to the present petition are that on the intervening night of 5th/6th January, 1992, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched the godown of the petitioner situated at Rewari Road, Village Surana, Narnaul, District Mahindergarh (Haryana). This was supposed to be in occupation of the petitioner and his father. The search was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and was witnessed by Shri Bishan Dayal. The search resulted in recovery of 158 silver ingots/slabs of foreign origin, collectively weighing 5301.384 kgs. valued at ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il, Mahindergrah, Haryana. He was also made aware that he could be heard by the Advisory Board in due course if the Board considers it essential to do so. The relied upon documents were supplied to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has assailed his detention primarily on the ground that the detaining authority has relied upon the documents which were irrelevant and some of the documents were illegible. Hindi Translation supplied was not the correct translation of the English documents and the documents in vernacular i.e. Hindu were not supplied to him. 5. During the course of arguments, Mr. Madan Lokur, appearing for the Union of India showed from the file that the documents supplied to the petitioner were in Hindi as well as in Engli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and IV which are reproduced as under : REPLY TO GROUND II In reply to Ground No. II, it is submitted that detaining authority has passed the detention order after scrutinising all the documents which were placed before him. The documents referred to in the ground under reply were relied upon for a proper application of the case. REPLY TO GROUND IV The contents of Ground IV are denied. In reply to the contention raised by the petitioner, it is submitted that all the documents supplied to the detenu/petitioner were quite clear and legible. The detenu had put his signature on each and every page of the documents supplied to him after his satisfaction that the same were legible. The violation of petitioner's right gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority applied its mind, he would not have taken note of or looked into these documents because these documents are in no way relevant for deciding the detention or with the smuggling activities of the petitioner. This act itself will show that the detaining authority mechanically signed the detention order without application of mind. Even when this ground was specifically raised in the petition, the respondent reiterated that these were relevant documents and have been taken note of. These documents on the face of it would show that these have no bearing or concern whatsoever with the prejudicial activities of the petitioner. Therefore, the consideration for arriving at this decision to detain the petitioner was based on irrelevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faction. It is the circumstance as a whole which has to be looked into and not dehors the same. It is only after applying its mind and finding that there is a sufficient material on record, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be detained and passed the impugned order. The subjective satisfaction can be challenged only when the detaining authority bases its decision on irrelevant documents. Then and then alone such a detention order has to be aside not otherwise. These documents referred to above according to Mr. Lokur are inconsequential. Even if these were remained on the record at the time of passing the order, it will not affect the decision making process of the authority. By the mere presence of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of cases as to under what circumstances, the Court can interfere, in its writ jurisdiction, the decision making process of the detaining authority. This Court in umpteen number of cases has held that it is always available with this Court to find out whether a subjective satisfaction arrived at was based on the proper application of mind or not. As and when the detaining authority relied on irrelevant material, Courts have been lifting the veil to see that the said subjective satisfaction was proper or not. To arrive at the conclusion that subjective satisfaction was proper or not, the Court has prima facie to see the material placed before the detaining authority. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that detaining authority also scrut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
