9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has assailed the same by way of this writ petition. His challenge is based primarily on four counts namely : (i) that there has been long delay in passing the detention order; (ii) unexplained delay in serving the said detention order; (iii) petitioner was in jail, his activities were controlled hence there was no occasion for him to indulge in smuggling activities; and (iv) that relevant documents have not been taken into account by the detaining authority nor these were placed before the said authority. 3.We had the opportunity to hear Mr. Herjinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Sud, Additional Solicitor General, for the respondent. So far as the first objection regarding delay in passing the detention order, to our mind, it has been satisfactory explained by the respondent vide their explanation Annexure 'A' given in the time chart filed with the sub-rejoinder. Perusal of the same reveals that the proposal for detention of the petitioner was sent to the detaining authority on 27th April, 2001 pursuance to which the screening committee met and considered the proposal on 16th May, 2001. Where after the case was processed and presented to the detaining autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority on 9th July, 2001, and thereafter, the detention order was passed on 12th July, 2001. This to our mind, sufficiently explains the time consumed in passing the detention order. From the facts and details placed on record it cann't be said that there was undue or unexplained delay in issuing the detention order in this case. 6.So far as the service of detention order on the petitioner is concerned, the same has also been satisfactorily explained by the respondent. The detention order dated 12th July, 2001 was admittedly served on 25th July, 2001 on the petitioner in Tihar jail. Mr. Herjinder Singh's contention that there was delay in execution of this order on the petitioner, we find no substance in his contention. So far as the principle of law laid down in the judgments of Supreme Court as relied by Mr. Herjinder Singh there is no quarrel with the proposition that if there is an unexplained delay then the detention order cannot be sustained. But what we have to see is whether any explanation has been rendered which is satisfactory. In the case of Noor Salman Makani v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1994 S.C. 575 contention was raised by the petitioner that there was non-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the COFEFOSA Act. 7.Similarly in the case of Dalbir Singh v. Union of India Ors. reported in 1995 (1) AD (Delhi) 1169 this Court has held that delay if satisfactorily explained in passing the detention order by the detaining authority then the said order cannot be quashed on the ground of delay. In this case delay, if any, has been properly explained by the respondent. The proposal was considered and thereafter was sent to the screening committee without any loss of time and the screening committee without delay met on 16th May, 2001. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the detaining authority or for that matter on the part of the screening committee. The contention of Mr. Herjinder Singh that there was a delay from the time the screening committee took a decision i.e. 16th May, 2002 and the matter was placed before the authority on 6th July, 2002. For this also the explanation has been given that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and it is only thereafter that the order of detention could be passed. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the detaining authority in taking decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Admittedly the authorities need not wait for the show cause notice while processing the detention papers but in the case in hand, the process started on 27th April, 2001 and after the screening committee met and proposal was considered on 16-5-2001 the detaining authority took cognizance of the show cause notice to the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the detaining authority was waiting for the show cause notice only or the process had not started before the issuing of the show cause notice. On this count also we find no substance in the argument of Mr. Herjinder Singh. 9.Now, turning to the objection that the proposal dated 6th July, 2001 was received by the COFEPOSA Unit on 9th July, 2001, the detention order could not have been passed on 12th July, 2001 because the show cause notice purported to be 6th July, 2001 was served on the petitioner on 10th July, 2001, therefore, it could not have been received by the COFEPOSA Unit on 9th July, 2001. This shows according to Mr. Herjinder Singh, non-application of mind while passing the detention order. Countering these arguments, Mr. K.K. Sud - Additional Solicitor General contended that show cause notice dated 6th July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
