SURINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 7th of March, 1988 passed by the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) with aview to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting the smuggled goods. The detention order was passed on the basis of an incident dated 17th of September, 1987 when the petitioner who as an employee of one Narvinder Singh had gone to take delivery of two boxes from the New Delhi Railway Station where be was apprehended with these two boxes by the customs officers who found 15,000 pieces of Electronic Digital Disco Ladies watches of foreign origin. On investigation ft was found that the petitioner was engaged in transporting smuggled goods.

(2.) . The petitioner was formally arrested on 18th of September, 1987 and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. On 30th of September, 1987 he was, however, admitted tp bail on certain conditions. The case of the petitioner is that on 6th of April, 1988 he was informed that the Advisory Board will be convening its meeting on 8th of April, 1988 for consideration of his case and pursuant to this he was produced before the advisory Board but he could not make any representation as there was no time. The petitioner had thereafter made two representations one to the detaining authority on 6th of May, 1988 and another representation was to the Central Government on 14th of May, 1988.

(3.) . The main contention of Mr. Herjinder Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that his representation made to the Central Goverament on 14th of May, 1988 has gone unheeded even upto date. Mr. Herjinder Singh contends that the total indifference shown by the Central Government to his representation and in not taking any decision thereon vitiates the detention order. He further contends that since under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the Central Government can at any time revoke an order of detention. It has the power to do it on its own or on the papers being forwarded to it by the State Government or even a representation being made to it for revocation of the detention order by the detenu. This ground has been specifically taken as ground No. 13 in the petition. The reply to this ground as submitted in its counter affidavit by the Central Government is that the aforesaid representation was received by the President's Secretariat but the record of the Department of the Revenue does not indicate that it was received by it. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in this, representation had repeated the same points as had been done by him vide: his representation dated 6th of May, 1988 to the detaining authority which points were considered and the decision communicated to the detenu. It is further stated that in this representation to the President the documents asked for were supplied to the detenu on 27th of May, 1988.