RAJEEV VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the detention order No.673/13/2004/CUS-VIII dated 7.10.2004 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act"). It is claimed that the detention order is the result of malafide exercise of powers for a collateral purpose. The Detention Order is vitiated by delays, arbitrariness and other illegalities. It violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner admits that he has so far not allowed the detention order to be served on him. The order is sought to be challenged at the pre-execution stage itself. Proceedings have also been initiated under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In the said proceedings, petitioner had initially been granted interim protection for the purpose of presenting himself before the Trial Court. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) vide order dated 31.5.2006, has imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs.50 lacs and proceedings under Section 80/81 of Cr.PC were initiated for the petitioner being declared a Proclaimed Offender.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that primarily, the detention order is passed for a wrong purpose inasmuch as the acts alleged against the detenu do not constitute a valid ground of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. The belated passing of the detention order, it is alleged, further demonstrates that the purpose is not preventive detention but punitive. Petitioner also assails the delay in passing of the detention order inasmuch as the premises of the petitioner were raided on 15.10.2003 and the order of detention was passed on 7.10.2004 The transactions in question are of the year 1998 and thereafter.

(3.) Petitioner had moved an application bearing Crl.M.No. 7537/2005 for urging additional grounds in the writ petition. Petitioner having obtained a copy of the detention order, sought to assail the same on various other grounds as could be gathered from the Detention Order. Respondents filed a reply to the said application submitting that the detenu had been evading the execution of the detention order and had sought to challenge it at the pre-execution stage on the limited grounds available and detailed consideration of the case at pre- execution stage was not required. Without prejudice, reply to the additional grounds was also filed.