MOHD SHAHID Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Writ Petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the detention order dated June 30, 1988, passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) read with Section 2([) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act).

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that on February 10, 1988, the petitioner arrived from Jeddah by Saudi Arab Airline Flight No. SV-344 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, and on being intercepted, his search was carried out and from his chappals which he was wearing at the moment, 15 gold biscuits of foreign origin of the value of Rs. 5,85,057/ were recovered. The detention is being challenged on various grounds but it is not necessary to deal with all the grounds, because on the ground of delayed consideration of the representation made by the petitioner to the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Admittedly, the representation although alleged by the petitioner to be dated August 18, 1988, is stated to be dated August 25, 1988, by the respondents was received by the Borne Department on August 26, 1988. This representation was Dot put up before the Administrator but was examined by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, who has filed the counter- affidavit to this writ and he called for some information and documents from the Customs Department, the sponsoring authority. The Custom Department had sent certain information and documents on September 7, 1988, but on September 8, 1988, Mr. A.S. Dagar, Deputy Secretary (Home), again felt that the information and documents were not complete as furnished by the Custom Department and he again asked for supply of more information from the Customs Department. The Customs Department supplied the information/documents in driblets on September 23, 1988 and on September 27, 1988. The file was put up before the Secretary (Home) on September 29, 1988 and the Home Secretary put up the said file before the Administrator on October 4, 1988 and the Administrator passed the order rejecting the representation on October 10, 1988 and the file was received back in the Department on October 10, 1988 and the communication regarding the decision of the Administrator was issued to the detenu on October 11, 1988. On the face of it, no explanation has been given as to why the Customs Department delayed in supplying the conformation and documents and why the Customs Department supplied the said information and documents in triblets firstly on September 7, 1988, then on September 23, 1988 and again on September 27, 1988. No reason whatsoever has been given in the counter affidavit explaining the delay caused by the Customs Department.