9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as 'the Act) with a view to prevent him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods. 2. Originally this very detenu was detained by virtue of an order under the said Act passed on 29th June, 1984 as a consequence of seizure of some goods from a godown on 10th February, 1984. The grounds of detention in respect of the order, dated 29th June, 1984 were given also on 29th June, 1984. That order had been passed with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods under section 3(1) of the Act. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing No.94 of 1984 was filed in this Court on July 23, 1984 to challenge that detention. Notice was issued by this Court returnable on August 9, 1984. In the meanwhile, on July 26, 1984 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take it is not necessary to notice all of them. One of the grounds of challenge taken is that the show cause notice issued to the detenu on July 26, 1984 was never placed before the detaining authority. It was a relevant document. In reply the respondent admit that the show cause notice was not placed before the detaining authority. It is, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that the show cause notice was relevant only for adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act and had no relevance to the preventive detention resorted to by virtue of the order passed by the detaining authority. 4. In our view the contention of the respondents has no force. The point is no longer res integra. It is covered by two decisions of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of what was the precise case of the Custom Department in the adjudication proceedings. That he could have been made aware of only if he had seen the show cause notice. This he could not do because the show cause notice was not placed before him. The grounds of detention served on the detenu in respect of the impugned detention do not show that the detaining authority was aware of the contents of the show cause notice of the basis on which the adjudication proceedings had been commenced. Even in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents this aspect has not been made clear or adverted to. May be the detaining authority could have taken a view that the sponsoring authority in the adjudication proceedings takes one stand while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dispute that the original order and the grounds are in English. Mr. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India has expressed his mind in English. It is evident from a reading of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that Mr. Dwivedi did not know Gujrati and in fact the documents in Gujrati had to be translated to him in English by one Mr. Bakshi, Deputy Secretary. If the Gujrati version is taken to be the correct version, it obviously does not reflect what Mr. Dwivedi wanted to convey. We leave this point at this stage having made the above observations and comment no more. 6. In view of our decision regarding the satisfaction having been vitiated, we strike down the impugned order of detention, dated 14th Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
