KADEEJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of the detenu detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act'). The Petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenu before this Court and setting him at liberty and for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order (Ext. P -1) and declaration (Ext.P -5).

(2.) On 4th January 1992 the Superintendent of Customs, Malappuram and his party intercepted ambassador car bearing registration No. KRM 5176 near Angadipuram leading to the recovery of 18 gold biscuits besides other recoveries. The detenu and other co -accused were arrested by the Customs Officers on 5th January 1992 under Sec. 104 of the Customs Act and ultimately leading to the passing of the detention order by the Government of Kerala dated 4th August 1992. (Ext. P -1) under Sec. 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act. The Government of India passed an order of declaration (Ext. P -5) No. 20/95 dated 3rd February 1995 under Sec. 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The representations submitted by the detenu against the orders under Sec. 3(1)(iii) as well as under Sec. 9(1) were rejected by the State and the Central Government respectively. The State Government passed the confirmation order in G.O. (Rt) No. 495/95/Home, dated 13th March 1995 (Ext. P -11) confirming the detention of the detenu and ordering that the detention shall continue for a period of two years with effect from 4th January 1995.

(3.) Though several grounds were raised and argued before us, ultimately the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner confined himself to the ground raised by him in the O.P. According to the learned Counsel though Sec. 9(1) declaration was issued against the detenu, the Advisory Board has failed to consider whether there is sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu, and if the State Government really applied its mind, it would not have confirmed the detention of the detenu for a period of two years. Therefore, the submission is that in view of the serious infirmity, the opinion of the Advisory Board and the confirmation order are vitiated.