BHAJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition had been filed on behalf of Bhajan Singh and Others, who are relatives of one Tarlok Singh, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA") on 23.2.1998. The petitioners are aggrieved by a notice issued on 8.3.1984 under Section 6 (1) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "SAFEMA". Mr Harjinder Singh submits that although the detention period is over and in fact the detention order had already been revoked, the question of validity of the detention order of Tarlok Singh is in issue because if it is held to be invalid, then no proceedings under SAFEMA could be taken against the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 12.5.1977 the said Tarlok Singh was arrested in view of the recovery of gold from one Ganga Ram. On 1.6.1977 the said Tarlok Singh was granted bail. Thereafter, on 23.2.1978 the said Tarlok Singh was detained under the COFEPOSA Act and a detention order was served upon him. Along with the detention order the grounds of detention was also given. However, no other documents were given to the detenu (Tarlok Singh). The said detenu made a representation before the Advisory Board. But the same was not accepted and the detention was upheld. The said Tarlok Singh, being aggrieved by the detention, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court on 21.8.1978. Subsequently, this petition was withdrawn by the said Tarlok Singh on the assurance given by the respondents that the detention order was being revoked. The detention order was revoked on 19.9.1978 by the Delhi Administration. Six years later, i.e. on 8.3.1984 a notice under Section 6 (1) of SAFEMA was served upon the petitioners in respect of the detention of the said Tarlok Singh. The petitioners filed this writ petition on 6.5.1984. On 17.5.1984, Rule DB was issued limited to the question of vires of SAFEMA. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the limited rule being issued, approached the Supreme Court which, by an order dated 18.1.1993, directed that the petitioner may also challenge the detention order itself. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Division Bench on 14.3.2005 when it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the challenge to the vires of SAFEMA was not being pressed as the Supreme Court already upheld the validity of SAFEMA. Therefore, the petition was limited to the question of validity of the detention order. In these circumstances, the Division Bench directed that the matter be placed before a Single Bench.

(3.) Mr Harjinder Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that he challenges the detention order on three points. The first point taken by him is that the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention were not supplied with the grounds. The documents which were relied upon and not supplied, have been referred to in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. He submits that, in fact, not a single document had been given to the detenu Tarlok Singh so as to enable him to make an effective representation.