LAWS(KAR)-1990-2-1

B M ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On February 06, 1990
B.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this matter coming up for orders, by consent of counsel and after hearing the counsel for parties, is disposed of by the following order.

(2.) the short question that falls to be answered is, whether thepetitioner may invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution to seek the following reliefs, i.e., to set aside the order of detention dated 30-6-1976 and notices issued as at annexures 'd' and 'e' under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act 1976, inter alia on the ground that the respondent No. 2, the competent authority under the aforementioned Act, has no jurisdiction to proceed with any action under the notice as the detention order itself is liable to be set-aside as being illegal and in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner. That the petitioner was detained under the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities Act, 1974 (cofeposa) as far back as in the year 1976 is evidenced by annexure-a. He never challenged that detention order earlier. It is only after receipt of annexures 'd' and 'e' he has challenged the detention order itself inter alia on the ground that he was not supplied with the grounds of detention as required by the Provisions of conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act.

(3.) in identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in the caseof union of India and others v haji mastan mirza, affirmed the decision of the Bombay high court wherein respondent the said haji mastan had challenged the detention order in the year 1981. In doing so, the Supreme Court further quashed the proceedings initiated against the said haji mastan under the Provisions of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) Act, 1976, on the ground that if the detention order is held to be ab initio void and illegal, thus no proceedings under the latter act may be initiated to confiscate the properties.