BIDISHA GOIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order impugned dated 16th September 2010 bearing No. HD 12 SCF 2010, passed by the second respondent -Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, vide Annexures A, has presented this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that she is wife of the detenue Shri. Pandian Muruganathan @ Shiva Pandian, S/o. Muruganathan and she is interested in his life, welfare and personal liberty. The second respondent herein in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act has passed an order of detention on being satisfied with a view to prevent Sri. Pandian Muruganathan @ Shiva Pandian from acting in any manner from smuggling of Muraite of Potash (MOP) and also irregular availment of drawback. In pursuance of the said order, the detenue has been detained in Central Prison, Bangalore, under Section 3(1)(i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act' for brevity), which is at Annexure-A. The said order has been served on the detenue. On 16th September 2010, a communication/order of detention at Annexure-A was issued by the second respondent along with the grounds of detention dated 16.09.2010 vide Annexure-B. Along with the same, detenue was also served with the list of documents and copies of documents referred to in the said list vide Annexure-C. On the basis of the said documents, second respondent issued the order of detention vide Annexure-A.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of detention has filed the present petition praying to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the detention of Shri. Pandian Muruganathan @ Shiva Pandian, S/o. Muruganathan, by order HD-2-SCF-2010 dated 16.09.2010 at Annexure-A as illegal and void ab-initio and order to release the detenue.

(3.) Sri. Kiran S. Javali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the out set contended, the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A is manifestly erroneous, illegal and reflects non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent and therefore, the order of detention is illegal.