BHAGAT RAM BHOLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two habeas corpus petitions involve identical facts and, therefore, are taken up for disposal together. Order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act ,1974 (in short, the Act) passed by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (in short, Govt of NCT of Delhi) is under challenge in each of the petitions. The said mittimus orders were passed with a view to preventing the petitioner in each case ( hereinafter referred as the 'detenu' by name) from smuggling any goods. The order of detention in each case is dated 25.5.2000. Grounds on which detention has been directed and background thereof are as follows

(2.) Detenu Bhagat Ram Bhola and detenu Ajay Bhola arrived at IGI Airport from Singapore via Bombay by Air India flight No. AI-111. After clearing immigration formalities, they collected their baggage from the conveyor belt and kept it one trolley. Two hand bags were kept in another trolley. While detenu Bhagat Ram Bhola was pushing the trolley with two handbags, his son the other detenu was pushing the other trolley on which zipper suitcases were placed and they walked through green channel. As both of them reached the exit gate of the customs arrival hall, both of them were intercepted by a Customs Officer on the basis of prior specific information and they were asked whether they were carrying any dutiable goods or any electronic goods to which both of them replied in negative. They were served with notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short Customs Act) informing that their baggage and person would be searched and if they desired such search would be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of Customs. There was a denial by them. Their baggage were opened and examined and were found to contain large quantities of dutiable and/or electronic goods. As the detenu could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise to support the legal import of electronic goods, they were seized by the Customs Officer under the provisions of the Customs Act. In voluntary statement dated 13.2.2000 tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act recovery and seizure of the goods was admitted. It was, inter alia, stated that B.R. Bhola was an ex employee of Indian Airlines and retired from the post of Catering Superintendent in April, 1997, while the other detenu Ajay was working in Indian Airlines as Senior Accounts Assistant. Considering the fact that both of them had traveled to Singapore and Dubai on a large number of occasions, a belief was entertained that they were engaged in smuggling activities and with a view to preventing them from smuggling, the order of detention was passed.

(3.) It is the stand of the detenu that their representations were not dealt with promptitude and there is long and inordinate delay in disposal by both the detaining authority and the Central Government. It is pleaded that representation was made to the Central Govt on 13.6.2000 with specific request to forward it to the detaining authority also. The said representation was rejected by the detaining authority vide order dated 29.6.2000. Unfortunately, the representation which was to be forwarded to the detaining authority was so done only on 29.6.2000 and was rejected on the same very day. According to the petitioners, the admitted position being that representations were received by the Central Govt on 14.6.2000 delay in despatch to the detaining authority, clearly involves a long period of inaction thereby rendering detention invalid. Strong reliance is placed on decisions of the Apex Court in Gracy v. State of Kerala AIR 1991 SC 1090 and Amit Shad Khan vs Hmingliana & Ors JT 1991 (3) SC 367.