ABDUL RAZAK DAWOOD DHANANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24th July, 2002 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 464 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the detenu Mohd. Yusuf Razak Dhanani by his father Shri Abdul Razak Dawood Dhanani appellant herein, challenging his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA).

(2.) It is not in dispute that the order of detention dated 20th February, 2002 was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who was specially empowered under S. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA in this behalf. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 26th February, 2002. The detenu on 12th April, 2002 submitted a representation to the detaining authority, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance as also to the Chairman of the COFEPOSA Central Advisory Board. In the said representation various grounds were raised challenging the order of detention and praying that the order of detention be revoked as there was no sufficient cause for the appellants detention. The Advisory Board considered the case of the detenu on 19th April, 2002 but the opinion of the Advisory Board was not in favour of the release of the detenu. Thereafter the detaining authority passed an order on 6th May, 2002 rejecting the representation of the detenu after fully considering the same. By order dated 8th May, 2002 the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Central Government after careful consideration.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that he made a second representation on 19th April, 2002 but the same was not considered and the order of detention was confirmed. Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the detenu had made a third representation on 14h May, 2002 but the appellant has not made any submission before us with regard to the said third representation, and therefore, the finding of the High Court on this aspect of the matter has not been challenged before us.