RAM SWAROOP AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or anyother appropriate writ for quashing an order of detention dated 27.7.1992.F. No. 5/66/92-Home (P-II) passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(COFEPOSA for short) by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi andfor the consequent release of the petitioner forthwith.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the detention of the petitioner are thathe Was intercepted at IGI Airport by the Customs officers on 30.3.1992 onhis arrival from Dubai. His personal search and that of his baggage yieldedrecovery of 400 gms. of gold valued at Rs. 1,72,000.00and Indian currencyamounting to Rs. 4,100.00. He was produced before the learned ACMM on31.3.1992 who remanded him judicial custody from time to time. On 8.4.1992a complaint under Sections 132 and 135 (l)(a) of the Customs Act was filedby the Customs Department in the Court of the learned ACMM. Theimpugned detention order was passed against him on 27/07/1992 underCOFEPOSA and in pursuance thereto he was detained on 21.8.1992.

(3.) Although the detention order has been challenged on a number ofgrounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of thearguments has restricted her arguments to only one ground taken up by wayof additional ground in Cr.M. 57/92. That ground is that the petitioner hadsent a representation dated 7.11.1992 in Urdu through a close friend to thePresident of India whereby besides asking certain information/documents,a prayer was also made for the revocation of the impugned detention order.It is then stated that till the filing of this application i.e. till 25.1.1993 thepetitioner had not received any reply and thus the long and undue delay onthe part of the Central Government in considering the representationrendered the impugned detention order illegal and void. lt is stated in thereply on behalf of the Union of India that the representation dated 7.11.1992was received in the Secretariat of the President on 23.11.1992 and from therein the Ministry's office on 25.11.1992. It is then stated that the representationwas placed before the Detaining Authority on the same who directed thatcomments may be called from the Sponsoring Authority. The SponsoringAuthority submitted their comments vide letter dated 9.12.1992 which werereceived in the Ministry's office on 15.12.1992. Then the case was processedand submitted to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 16.12.1992 who considered it and rejected the representation. It is then alleged that the memointimating the petitioner about the rejected of his representation was issuedon 17.12.1992 and thus there was no undue and un-explained delay.