PRAVINKUMAR RATNABHAI AJUDIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 2.5.2012 being F.No. 673/02/2012- Cus.VIII passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, COFEPOSA unit who has been detained under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short "COFEPOSA").

(2.) PURSUANT to the summons of 'Rule-nisi' issued in this matter, the detaining authority has filed affidavit dated 21.9.2012 on her behalf as well as on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Central Government Senior Counsel Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the respondents has submitted that , there is no delay on the part of the authority in passing the order of detention. He has submitted that the authority has explained the reasons for not passing the impugned detention order in the affidavit, even though the same was approved by the Central Screening Committee on 7.12.2011. He has submitted that, though, the Screening Committee had approved the proposal on 7.12.2011, the detaining authority has power to call for further material from the sponsoring authority to satisfy himself/herself about the sufficiency of the reasons made out by the sponsoring authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order. It was argued that list of the relied upon documents reflects that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the events which have been taken place after 7.12.2011 i.e. after the approval of the Screening Committee. He has submitted that the Screening Committee had approved the proposal made by the sponsoring authority about the detention of the detenu, minutes were signed and were communicated to the sponsoring authority only on 28.12.2011. Relying upon the chronology of events (which is not part of the affidavit), he has submitted that, some proceedings were going on with regard to the case on hand at Surat. Some show-cause- notices were issued to the other witnesses and, therefore, there was sufficient reasons for passing the detention order only on 2.5.2012.