9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging his residential addresses in Delhi, Ghaziabad and Dehradun. However, as the petitioner had allegedly indulged in unlawful activity as far back as July, 2001 and the business of import of mobile phones is no longer lucrative and the petitioner s passport is lying expired since 2005 as well as the fact that the penalty proceedings had resulted in exoneration of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that continuing the order of detention would be an exercise in futility - In fact, this Court is of the opinion that there is no live-link today between the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The impugned detention order dated 28th September, 2001 passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner is set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional statement. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that in a petition filed by Mr.Rajesh Gulati before the Supreme Court, his detention order dated 28th September, 2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, was quashed as far back as 29th August, 2002. 4. He contends that the impugned detention order could not have been passed by the respondent solely on the basis of retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, of an estranged relative of the petitioner and more so, when searches/raids conducted at the premises of the petitioner immediately after the alleged incident, had not revealed any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged activities of smuggling. 5. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the petitioner is currently not holding any passport. 9. He lastly states that the petitioner s father is suffering from cancer and in the event, the order of detention is not quashed, petitioner would suffer irreparable harm and injury. 10. Per contra, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for respondent-Customs states that the petitioner s contention that he came to know of the impugned detention order dated 29th September, 2001 only after the final order dated 17th March, 2016 had been passed under Section 7(1) (3) of SAFEMA Act, 1976, is wrong, since in the year 2005, the petitioner had applied to the Hon ble Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for revocation/cancellation of detention order passed under CO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dehradun. 15. However, as the petitioner had allegedly indulged in unlawful activity as far back as July, 2001 and the business of import of mobile phones is no longer lucrative and the petitioner s passport is lying expired since 2005 as well as the fact that the penalty proceedings had resulted in exoneration of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that continuing the order of detention would be an exercise in futility. In fact, this Court is of the opinion that there is no live-link today between the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The Supreme Court in T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala Ors., AIR 1990 SC 225 with regard to live-link has held as under:- 11. The conspectus o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though there is no hard-and-fast rule and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf, however, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, it is incumbent on the part of the court to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a reasonable and acceptable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned. 28. It is also the duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
