BHUPENDRA AMRATLAL MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges his order of his detention as passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 1, on September 8, 1987 directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, as also his continued detention as per the said order. Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, respondent No. 3, had made a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA) on September 24, 1987. By virtue of this declaration the period of detention of the petitioner lias been two years from the date of his detention. It is stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from London on July 26, 1987. On search of his baggage as also his personal.search 132 pieces of gold biscuits of foreign origin weighing 10 tolas each (total weight 15397 gms) valued at Rs. 43,70,760.00 were recovered. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi passed the order of detention observing that with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods namely, gold into India, it was necessary to pass an order of detention against him.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of detention as also hit 327 continued detention on a number of grounds. It may be stated here that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his detention, being Cr. 2.500/87. A notice was issued in that petition to the respondents to show cause as to why the same be not admitted. The petition was thereafter partly argued on behalf of the petitioner regarding admission. Then on the adjourned date an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner praying for the withdrawal of the petition with permission to file a fresh petition, as advised. That petition was filed on behalf of the detenu. Bhupendra Amratlal Mehta through his brother, Rohit Amratlal Mehta and the application for withdrawal of that petition was also moved by Rohit Amratlal Mehta on the instructions of the detenu. That writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Nothing was stated in the order dated February 24, 1988 dismissing the petition as withdrawn as to whether leave for filing a fresh petition was or was not allowed to the petitioner.

(3.) In the present writ petition apart from challenging the detention of the petitioner on the grounds that were taken up by the petitioner in the earlier petition, some new grounds have also been taken. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the first writ petition of the petitioner having been dismissed a withdrawn the present subsequent writ petition is not maintainable and is barred. I would not like to go into the broad question as to whether the present writ petition is maintainable on the grounds that were taken by the petitioner in his earlier petition. However, as the petitioner has taken some new grounds in the present petition which had not been taken up by him in his earlier petition, I would like to deal with the question as to whether the petition is maintainable at least insofar as the challenge to the order of detention and his continued detention is made therein on fresh grounds which were not raised by the petitioner in his first petition.