MURLI LILARAMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the order of detention of Murali Lilaramani passed on 5th of March 1988 is being challenged. The detention order was passed by Joint Secretary to Government of India under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) (as amended) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The detention order is based on an incident dated 8th January, 1988 when the detenu was caught in Hotel Regal, Fatehpuri, Delhi and a sum of Rs. 1,51,000.00 and 8 gold guineas and some documents were recovered from him. On investigation it was found that the detenu has been receiving and making compensatory payments on instructions from abroad (commonly known as Hawala transactions). This illegal business was being done by the detenu from Hotel Regal, Fatehpuri.

(2.) . Mr. R.M. Bagai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the detention order stands vitiated on a short ground that there has been a long and unexplained delay in consideration of his representation as a result of which there has been violation of his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. This ground he had specifically taken in ground 'C' of his writ petition.

(3.) . In the counter affidavit it is stated by the respondents that the representation of the petitioner dated 4th April, 1988 was received in the COFEPOSA unit on 19th of April 1988. It is also stated that as some of the points raised in the representation required comments from the Directorate of Enforcement the representation was sent to the Directorate of Enforcement on 22nd April, 1988 and the comments with a covering letter of 13th May 1988 were received from the Directorate of Enforcement on 16th May, 1988. Further explanation is that 14th and 15th of May '.were public holidays and since 18th of May was also a holiday, a note incorporating the points raised by the petitioner along with the comments of the Directorate of Enforcement were put up before the detaining authority on 19th May, 1988 when it was considered and rejected. In the rejoinder: affidavit the case of the detenu further is that this order of rejection of his representation was actually communicated to him on 26th May 1988. Mr. Bagai submits that the detaining authority is duty bound to explain each day's delay and unless there is a reasonable and sufficient explanation the detention will stand vitiated.