PAWAN BAJAJ Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was arrested at IGI Airport on 25th April, 2002 and was produced before the Magistrate on 27th April, 2002 for alleged offences under Customs Act and that of FEMA. He was granted bail in this on 14th June, 2002 and was eventually detained under Section 3(i) of COFEPOSA on 5th August, 2002. He was communicated the grounds of detention also on the same day. He made representation against his detention to the detaining authority on 29th August, 2002, which was rejected by order dated 11th September, 2002. He again made a representation dated 23rd September, 2002 to the Chairman of the Advisory Board and also to the Central Government dated 21st October, 2002, asking for re-constitution of the Advisory Board and for revocation of his detention which also suffered the same fate. His detention order was confirmed later and communicated to him on 10th October, 2002.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged his detention on several grounds. He firstly complains that his detention was punitive in nature as it was passed on the same material on the basis of which a complaint was lodged against him for offences under the Customs Act and, therefore, satisfaction derived by the detaining authority was dehors the provisions of the COFEPOSA. He also alleges that there was an undue delay of 22 days in disposal of his representation dated 23rd September, 2003 and some relied upon documents, like adjudication order in the case of Bharat Bhushan, and security bag Tag Nos. 341823 and 341846 were not supplied to him which vitiated his detention. There was also no material before the detaining Authority to derive satisfaction that his detention was required to prevent him from indulging in smuggling in future as his passport was seized and he was suffering from stringent conditions of bail order. The detention order also suffers from non-application of mind as it was a stereo-typed verbatim reproduction of the dossier sent by the Customs Authority. The detaining authority had also not shown any compelling necessity for his detention.

(3.) Respondents have filed counter-affidavits denying Petitioner's allegation and justifying the detention order. They claim that the order was passed by the detaining authority on a careful consideration of the material placed before and relied upon by him which included the voluntary statement of the Petitioner himself, besides statements of other persons and other relevant facts and circumstances. It is denied that the order was punitive in nature or that there was any unreasonable or undue delay in the disposal of petitioner's representations. The representation dated 28th August, 2002, addressed to the detaining Authority by petitioner's advocate was received on 2nd September, 2002, on which comments of the Sponsoring authority were sought on the same day which were received on 9th September, 2002. The case was put up before DS (COFEPOSA) on 10th September, 2002, and before the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) concerned on 11th September, 2002, and was rejected on the same day without any delay whatsoever.