(1.) THE petitioner, wife of one Irshad Ahmed, who was detained under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'cofeposa Act'), by the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 15. 06. 2005, challenges the same in this petition.
(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kandasamy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government standing counsel for the second respondent.
(3.) AFTER taking us through the grounds of detention and the connected materials, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. According to him, he relied upon certain extraneous materials, which would not have been available to the Detaining Authority on the date of passing the order of detention on 15. 06. 2005. He further contended that since the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II, Chennai, passed an order on 14. 06. 2005, permitting interrogation of the detenu in prison and the Jail authorities received the same on 15. 06. 2005 this would not have been available to the Detaining Authority on 15. 06. 2005, on the date of passing of the order of detention; however, the same has been referred to in the order of detention. He also contended that reply of the Customs Department dated 15. 06. 2005 to the representation of the wife of the detenu was despatched to her only on 16. 06. 2005; hence, this would not have been placed before the detaining Authority, whereas the same has been referred to in the detention order. By pointing out the above factual details, he contended that the grounds as formulated could not have been in existence when the detention order was made on 16. 06. 2005; hence, the detention order is vitiated.