BHARTI ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.12.2011, we had passed the following order:-

(2.) This writ petition seeks the quashing of the detention order bearing No. No.673/18/2011-Cus.VIII dated 08.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 (Rasheda Hussain, Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi) against the detenu (Shri Harmesh Arora). It is also prayed that a direction be issued that the said detenu be released from detention and be set at liberty forthwith. The petition has been filed by the mother of the said detenu.

(3.) The detention order has been challenged, primarily, on two grounds. One ground of challenge is that the detenu has not been supplied with the relied upon documents, which were meant for him. It is the case of the petitioner that the relied upon documents that were given to the detenu were those which related to Shri Mohan Lal Arora (the detenu's father). As a consequence, the documents, which were meant for the detenu, have not been supplied to the detenu. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the detenu that the impugned detention order is vitiated inasmuch as the procedural safeguard of supply of relied upon documents pari passu the execution of the detention order and the supply of the grounds for detention has not been followed. The other point urged on behalf of the detenu is that the grounds of detention, which have been served upon the detenu, indicate that one of the representations against the detention order can be made to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, 6 th Floor, B-Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, whereas the detaining authority, who issued the impugned detention order, was the respondent No.2 and who is an Additional Secretary to the Government of India. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this would also vitiate the detention inasmuch as the opportunity of making a representation to the detaining authority has been denied to the detenu because the representation is to be made to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) and not to the detaining authority. It is, therefore, submitted that there has been a violation of the Constitutional scheme and, consequently, the detention order and the detention pursuant thereto, stand vitiated.