UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIDYA BAGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India, Joint Secretary COFEPOSA, Commission of Customs-II, Madras and State of Tamil Nadu question the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing order of detention dated 19-12-1995 passed in respect of one Ratan Bagaria under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act"). Before the order of detention could be served on Shri Ratan Bagaria, his wife Smt. Vidya Bagaria, the respondent herein, filed Habeas Corpus writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution") praying for issuance of writ or any other order quashing the order of detention passed by appellant No. 2 herein who was the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Several grounds touching legality of grounds on which the order of detention was passed were raised in the writ petition. The present appellants filed a counter-affidavit. Primarily an objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the writ application before the order of detention was actually served and the detenu taken into custody. The various stands regarding the legality of the grounds of detention as have been raised by the writ petition were also refuted and it was submitted that grounds stated were germane and relevant for directing detention. The High Court elaborately dealt with the legality of the grounds on which the order of detention was founded. But as regards the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition even before the order of detention was actually served, the same was dealt with and disposed of in a very casual and summary manner, observing without even properly adverting to the law laid down by this Court, brought specifically to its notice as follows :

(2.) The writ petition was allowed holding that grounds indicated in the order of detention were not legally sustainable and order of detention was unsustainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has not dealt with the most vital aspect regarding the very maintainability of the writ petition even before the order of detention was served and the detenu incarcerated in prison in a very cryptic manner before rejecting the plea.