TAHSEEM BANU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detention Order dated 22-10-1990 made under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, COFEPOSA Act), detaining Sri Abdul Mateen Kazia, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A in this writ petition, has been impugned by his wife Smt. Tahseem Banu by filing this writ petition.

(2.) Material facts for deciding this writ petition briefly stated are : Detention Order dated 22-10-1990 (Annexure-A) made by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, detaining Abdul Mateen Kazia - husband of the writ petitioner under S. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, was served on the detenu on 23-5-l99l and he was consequently detained in the Central Prison, Bangalore. Detenu made a representation respecting detention order to the detaining authorities on 23-5-1991 seeking annulment of the detention order on the grounds urged in the representation. But that representation being considered by the detaining authority came to be rejected on 14-6-1991 and the information of rejection was communicated to the detenu on 17-6-l99l. The writ petitioner, wife of the detenu, is said to have sent a representation dated 9-7-1991 to the Secretary, COFEPOSA Unit, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, respecting the detention of her husband under the aforesaid detention order. This representation is said to have been received by the COFEPOSA Unit of the Ministry of Finance at New Delhi on 14-8-l99l though it was said to have been sent on 13-7-1991 by Registered Post. It is also admitted that the representation being considered by the detaining authority release of the detenu on parole was ordered on 11-10-1991. In the mean time, on 14-8-1991 the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu impugning the validity of the detention order by which he was detained.

(3.) Two points are raised before us by Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition. The first of such contentions is that there being delay in considering the representation dated 9-7-1991 made regarding release from detention of the petitioner;s husband, on parole, the impugned detention order by which her husband has been detained stands vitiated. The second contention then is that non-placing of the information relating the Writ Petition No. 53 of 1990 by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority before the impugned detention order was made, has vitiated the impugned detention order by which the husband of the petitioner has been detained.