GAURAV RASWANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of detention passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act') pursuant to which the petitioner Gaurav Raswant (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') is detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.

(2.) Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 1.12.2000 were supplied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. The detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Central Government as well as the Advisory Board. It was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau; the representation meant for the Central Government was to be addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; and the representation meant for the Advisory Board to be addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board (COFEPOSA), Delhi High Court. The grounds were communicated for the purpose of Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (inshort, 'the Constitution') and Section 3(3) of the Act. The detenu made representations to the Detaining Authority, the Central Government and the Advisory Board, but the prayer for revoking the detention did not find acceptance.

(3.) Three grounds have urged in support of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had sent a second representation after rejection of the first representation, but the respondents did not take any step(s) to constitute a fresh Advisory Board for consideration of the same. This according to the petitioner vitiated the detention; Strong reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Makhan Lal Gokul Chand v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Anr., IV (1999) CCR 266 (SC)=IX (1999) SLT 389=2000 (67) ECC 425. Secondly, it is submitted that when the order of detention was passed, no bail application was pending and the detenu was in jail. On the likelihood of filing of a bail application, the detention order could not have been passed. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ors., IV (2000) CCR 279 (SC)=VIII (2000) SLT 410=JT 2000 (Suppl. 3) SC 178. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Lieutenant Governor did not apply his mind and merely approved orders passed by his subordinates. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2000 disposed of on 14.5.2001 in the matter of Lundup Tamang v. Union of India and Ors., 92 (2001) DLT 278 (DB)=III (2001) CCR 242 (DB)