P P NASEEMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detention of Palakkat Ashraf (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') pursuant to an order of detention in terms of S.3(1)(i) and S.3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the Act) has been challenged by his wife in this Habeas Corpus petition. Pursuant to order of detention dated 14-12-1997, detenu was arrested on 22-6-1999 and is presently detained in Central Prison, Trivandrum. Grounds of detention were supplied to detenu on the date of arrest. Written representations were sent by detenu's counsel to Superintendent of Central Prison for detenu's signature and sending to State of Kerala and Union of India. Such representations were sent on 30-7-1999 to detaining authority and Central Government requesting to revoke order of detention. State Government rejected detenu's representation on 16-8-1999, while Central Government rejected it on 20-8-1999. As required under the Act, reference was made to Advisory Board. Said Board met, heard detenu and sent its report dated 20-8-1999 to the effect that there was sufficient cause for detention of detenu. Order of confirmation was passed on 6-9-1999 by the State Government confirming detention for a period of one year from date of detention.

(2.) Though several grounds have been taken in the writ petition, at the time of hearing, mainly two grounds were pressed into service. Firstly, it was contended that there was inordinate delay in executing the order of detention; and secondly, there was unexplained delay in disposal of representation. According to the petitioner, both the fatal to the order of detention. In support of first contention, it is submitted that order of detention dated 14-12-1997 was executed on 22-6-1999 i.e., after about 18 months. It is to be noted that specific stand has been taken in the petition to the effect that plea of detenu avoiding arrest is clearly false and contrary to fact situation because detenu appeared before police officials on 8-12-1998 and a statement was recorded from him, which is Ext. P10(a). Similarly, representations have been dealt with casually and it has not been explained as to what steps were taken to deal with the matter with the promptitude warranted. It is pointed out that even Central Government has not indicated how it dealt with representation.

(3.) Counter - affidavit has been filed by State Government, inter alia, taking the stand that detenu was absconding to avoid arrest and went underground and action was initiated against him under S.7 of the Act. As regards appearance of detenu at police station, stand taken in the counter - affidavit of the State is interesting. In para 13 of counter - affidavit, it has been stated, inter alia, as follows :