9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid application being moved an interim order was made on 19th February, 1987 restraining the respondents from giving any effect to or taking any steps in pursuance of the said order of detention dated 14th November, 1986. It may be mentioned that in spite of notice of the application served upon Deputy Director of Enforcement, no one put in appearance for the Deputy Director or for any of the respondents. On 23rd February, 1987 a further order was made giving liberty to the petitioner to incorporate the date and number of the order passed under COFEPOSA Act, Earlier direction made that the petitioner should not leave West Bengal without the leave of this Court was deleted in view of the fact that pursuant to leave granted by the Karnataka H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Madras was vacated by the order dated 15th May, 1987 upon undertaking given by the petitioner to this Court to appear before the said authority as and when he would be required to do so. 5. The matter appeared from time to time in the list but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Even affidavit was not filed, although direction was obtained. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit, copy whereof was served upon the respondents. In the said affidavit the writ petitioner has narrated certain further facts which were not incorporated in the writ application. Having regard to the averments made in the said supplementary affidavit, the following order was made on 20th May, 1987. "On a consideration of the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expression of International Trade and earning of substantial foreign exchange for the country by the writ petitioner. He shall, within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order make a report to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India or the appropriate authority dealing with COFEPOSA matter, as to whether in the interest of the country the order of detention should be withdrawn or not. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India or the appropriate authority dealing with COFEPOSA matter, shall consider afresh on the basis of the report or recommendation of the Respondent No. 5 whether the order of detention should be acted upon or should be withdrawn. The appropriate authorities shall communicate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this application as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. This contention regarding territorial jurisdiction has already been dealt with and rejected on the application made for vacating interim order. This order has now become res judicata. It is not disputed and in fact conceded by the respondents that the petitioner has been carrying on the business under the name and style of Encee Aromatics Limited at No. 93, Dakhindhari Road, Calcutta. The bills for municipal rates and taxes, rent bills, postal receipts, Trade Licences, etc. have been produced in support of the contention that the petitioner has been carrying on business inter alia from the aforesaid address. Since admittedly the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection to the petitioner going abroad for export promotion. The Reserve Bank of India also granted foreign exchange equivalent to US $ 4000. The petitioner thereafter with the permission of FERA and with the foreign exchange released by the Reserve Bank left India in connection with export promotion. He came back in February, 1988. It is not disputed that the petitioner brought orders for more than Rs. 50 lakhs for his products. The foreign buyers have also made firm commitments by establishing foreign letters of credit for US $ 3,73,000 (approximately Rs. 50 lakhs). 11. The petitioner again moved the Deputy Director of Enforcement, FERA for visiting foreign countries for export promotion. Such permission was accorded to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange which has been earned through his personal efforts and endeavours. By purporting to pass an order for keeping the petitioner in detention, the respondents have acted contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act. It may also be mentioned that the order of detention was also not confirmed as required under the provisions of the Act. In my view in a case like this where the order itself is without jurisdiction even though the order of detention has been made, the petitioner is entitled to challenge such an order in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate writs and directions. It is no doubt true that Court may issue a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a person when he is in detention. But when the deten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
