VIRENDRA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation by the petitioner challenging the detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1947 even before its execution. The said order was issued on 14.03.1990 and the challenge made to the same before the Calcutta High Court was dismissed as early as on 24.07.1990. All these years, the detention order could not be executed as apparently the petitioner has thrown a challenge to the authority of law and the efficiency of the authorities concerned by going underground. He has played a hide and seek game. 'Catch me, if you can ' is the obvious challenge thrown by him. He, who is the cause for the delay, is now before this Court, in an attempt to perpetuate the non-execution of the order, seeking a Mandamus to restrain the authorities from executing the order. The law and the law enforcing authorities of this country are not as weak as he believes them to be. The system which is founded on the concept of Rule of Law which owes its existence to the people shall prove to be supreme. The story of the petitioner, whose conduct is a challenge to the working of the system, goes like this.

(2.) THE Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, by an order dated 14.03.1990, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the 'Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ' directed the petitioner to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai. The Address of the petitioner in the said detention order was given as Shri Virendra Mehta, S/o Motilal Mehta residing at (i) No.9-E, Chandanbala Apartments, Vepery, Madras - 7 and also at No.315 & 316, Akash Ganga Apartments, Flowers Road, Madras - 10.

(3.) ACCORDING to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Calcutta High Court ultimately dismissed the case filed by him in F.M.A.T.No.1363 of 1990 dated 24.07.1990 itself. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not choose to surrender before the authorities to undergo detention. The respondents also could not execute the detention order despite several steps taken.