T K ABDULLAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, at the pre-detention stage, apprehending his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchnge and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA) seeking the quashing of the detention order F.No. 673/43/94 dated 24.5.1994 passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA.

(2.) . Petitioner contends (in para 1 of the petition) that a few days before filing of the writ petition, the respondents wanted to detain the petitioner, came to the petitioner's premises with the detention order, the petitioner was not there and the detention order was copied by the petitioner's 'relative' in the petitioner's absence. The alleged copy of the detention order is filed as Annexure P-1. It is contended that from the copy it is clear that the petitioner is sought to be detained as an 'abettor' of smuggling activities. This contention is based on the alleged copy of the detention order. Of course, it is commond ground that petitioner does not have a copy of the grounds of detention.

(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though at the pre-detention stage, the challenge to the proposed detention can be based only on very limited grounds, - as mentioned by the Supreme Court in Government of India vs. Smt. Alka Sukbhash Gadia (1992) SCC (Suppl)(1) 495, - the case of the petitioner falls within the said limited grounds. Petitioner assumes that inference of 'abetment' is drawn on the basis that the petitioner 'abetted' smuggling by two persons: viz. Shri Abdul Bashir Moideen and Shri Mohd. Ali Abdullah. These two persons are said to have brought 42 pieces and 21 gold biscuits respectively from Dubai to India on 29.12.93. Petitioner states that these two persons have been released by the Advisory Board and that on that basis the detention orders in their cases have been revoked. Petiltioner says that if the alleged principal offenders have been released by the Advisory Board, there can be no ground to treat the petitioner as an 'abettor'. It is also contended that the grounds are vague. Reference is made to Government of India's notifications to show that petitioner's driver receives at IGI Airport only those who have paid duty on gold brought into India upto 5 kgs. and those who had stayed in Dubai for more than 6 months.