K ZAINABA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of detention dated 29th March 1995 passed by Government of Kerala, Home (SSA) Department in purported exercise 01 power conferred under S.3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act') is challenged in this Original Petition for writ of habeas corpus by the wife of M. C. Beeran (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'). Ext. P5 is the order of detention. Same was passed with a view to prevent detenu from abetting smuggling of goods. Order of detention was executed on 25th February 1999. Grounds of detention were communicated to him on same day through Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram where the detenu is detained. Several activities were enumerated to indicate that there was reasonable apprehension about detenu continuing to abet smuggling of gold into country, unless he was prevented from doing so by detaining him under provisions of the Act. Lt is indicated in grounds of detention that though departmental adjudication proceedings were likely to be initiated against him, detaining authority was satisfied that he should be detained with a view to prevent him from abetting in smuggling gold into India. Copies of documents and statement relied upon were enclosed and he was informed of his right to make representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and Advisory Board against detention, if he was so advised.

(2.) In fact, order of detention could be executed only on 25th February 1999. Representation filed before concerned authorities did not bring any relief to the detenu. This application has been filed questioning legality of detention on the sole ground that there was unusual delay in effectuating order of detention. There was a time gap of about four years between date of order and actual detention. That being the position, according to petitioner, detenu's continued detention in custody is illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel for opposite parties, however, submitted that detenu was absconding and inspite of best efforts, he could not be apprehended. In reply to this plea, petitioner has specifically urged that allegation of absconding is false and motivated. In fact, detenu was in his native place for considerably long time. In Para.1.5 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated as follows: