9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while he was leaving for Kualalumpur/Singapore and on search, US dollars amounting to 1.39 lakhs in Indian currency were recovered. Further his brother who was also going with him, from his person, foreign currency equivalent to 5.34 lakhs of rupees was recovered. The detaining authority being of the opinion that the detention of the appellant is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange, issued the order of detention on 25.3.94 and was served on the detenu on the same day. But the grounds of detention was served on the appellant on 30th March, 1994. In accordance with the provisions of the Act his case was forwarded to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board on consideration of the materials placed before it, gave its opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The appropriate government thereafter confirmed the detention and after expiry of period of one year the detenu has been released but the detenu/appellant filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order of detention. By way of an add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been no application of mind, and therefore, that vitiates the order of detention. We would examine the correctness of each of the aforesaid contentions, but at the outset we may indicate that the President had promulgated Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 on 17th September, 1974 which was later on replaced by the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act 52 of 1974). The very object of enacting the legislation was to check diversion of foreign exchange from official channels and it was thought that unless the links which facilitate violations of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling activities are disrupted by immobilising by detention of the persons engaged in these operations then there would not be any substantial impact. The Act has been amended from time to time to meet the needs of the country and the Act has been enacted at a point of time when the country was facing acute foreign exchange problem. 3. Coming to the first question as to whether by serving the grounds of detention on 30th March, 1994 there has been an infraction of Sub-section (3) of Section 3, the learned counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the representation itself. There is no dispute that under Section 11 of the Act a power of revocation lies with the Central Government. This power is a supervisory power and is intended to be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of the power of detention by the Detaining Authority or the State Government, and therefore, to retain the statutory safeguard the Central Government has to discharge its responsibility with constant vigilance and watchful care. This power also is independent of power of confirmation or setting aside the order of detention. But the question for consideration is when the Representation has not been addressed to the Central Government but is addressed to the Advisory Board can it be said that the Central Government also owes obligation to consider the same and decide one way or the other. It may be stated at this stage that while serving the grounds of detention on the detenu it was clearly indicated that if the detenu wishes to make any representation against the order of detention he may do so to the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and to the Central Government and for that purpose he may address it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered by the Central Government does not arise. This contention, therefore, was rightly rejected by the High Court. 5. So far as the third ground of attack is concerned, a representation that was made to the Central Government on 22.6.94 and was disposed of on 12th July, 1995, it cannot be said that there has been inordinate delay which can be said to vitiate the detention of the detenu. There is no inflexible Rule that delay in considering the representation in all cases ipso facto would be sufficient to render the detention void. Further what can be held to be an unexplained delay in disposing of the representation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The right to make a representation is undoubtedly a constitutional right of the detenu and such a representation should be considered as expeditiously as possible. But what is reasonable expedition will depend upon the facts of each case. Judged from the aforesaid stand point and examining the time taken by the Central Government in disposing of the representation of the detenu and the grounds advanced by the Central Government in its counter- affidavit filed in the High Court we are unable to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
