FAIZAL Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the brother-in-law of the detenu, viz., Mohamed Kassime, S/o.Abdoul Lattif, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 06.02.2012 slapped on the detenu under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(2.) MR.Palanikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several grounds, would mainly contend that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu's wife, Shaheetha Banu, dated 02.03.2012 and thereby infringed the fundamental rights to detenu under Article 25(5) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the representation dated 02.03.2012 was received on 12.03.2012 and thereafter, parawar remarks and comments along with its English translation and other relevant informations were called for from the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority on 13.03.2012 and the said informations and records were received by the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2012. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after the receipt of such information and documents as early as on 20.03.2012 from the Sponsoring Authority, the 2nd respondent waited for the receipt of the comments from the Detaining Authority and even the said comments from the Detaining Authority were received by the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2012. It is contended that in spite of receiving all the required documents, the 2nd respondent sought for furnishing complete information and even the said complete information was received by him on 28.03.2012. It is further contended that in spite of getting all the required documents and informations, it is stated in the counter that after conducting a detailed examination of the issues raised in the representation, the file was submitted to the Joint Secretary [COFEPOSA], who in turn, desired to seek for some additional information and the said additional information was also received by him on 19.04.2012 and ultimately, the representation was rejected on 25.04.2012.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel [for Customs and Central Excise] appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that there is no delay in considering the representation of the wife of the detenu dated 02.03.2012. It is contended that sequence of events are clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would contend that the 2nd respondent took time for seeking the required information and documents and received the same from the Sponsoring Authority and the detaining Authority. It is contended that after receiving the said information, the Joint Secretary [COFEPOSA], on examination of the representation and other documents, desired to get some additional information and as such, the same were called for through the Ministry's Letter dated 30.03.2012 and the said additional information was received on 23.04.202 and accordingly, the rejection order was passed on 25.04.2012 and as such, there is no delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation.