KAJA MOHIDEEN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu by name Kuthus Rawther Mansor Ali, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 08. 12. 2005, detaining his son under the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central act 52 of 1974 ).

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for R-1; and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central government Standing Counsel for R-2.

(3.) AFTER taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, at the foremost, submitted that, while passing the impugned order of detention, reliance has been made on the documents enclosed at page nos. 60 to 62 of the paper book, which have no relevance to the detention order passed against the detenu, therefore, it is apparent that extraneous factors have been taken into consideration, thereby, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is vitiated. He also contended that even though this aspect was pointed out in the representation, the same has not been properly considered by the Detaining Authority, thus, the consideration of the representation stands vitiated. He further contended that though the detenu sent a detailed representation addressed to the superior officer in the Customs Department at New Delhi on 28. 11. 2005, and the said communication, sent on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the said authority; the same had not been forwarded to the Detaining Authority, who passed the detention order on 08. 12. 2005. According to him, a vital document has not been placed before the Detaining authority, hence, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated.