ROSANA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner wife of the detenu Udumanaliyar Safrudeen, filed this petition challenging the order of detention passed by the first respondent on 31.1.1997, under Sec.3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future and to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit that her husband had come from Singapore carrying two luggages one blue and another khakhi colour baggage and that he wanted to declare the goods and therefore he was directed in the red channel. It is alleged in the affidavit that he was made to admit that he brought two more luggages which contained emergency lights in which gold bars were found concealed. It is alleged that these bags did not belong to the husband of the petitioner. It is further alleged that her husband has been falsely implicated and that the impugned order passed on the basis of a single/ solitary instant's is not justifiable. THE further grievance of the petitioner is that the detention order, by which her husband had been detained, has been passed without any authority of law. It is further stated that considerable delay has been caused in disposing of the representation sent by the petitioner. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the detention order has been passed mechanically, without any application of mind. With these allegations, the petitioner is before this Court, with the prayer mentioned above.

(3.) THE first contention raised during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not at all made in the affidavit. Since the point goes to the root of the case, this Court asked the officer concerned to file an affidavit, after hearing the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, to ascertain about the existence of any notification. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi. It is submitted that vide order dated 26.4.1991, he had been delegated the representations. It is further submitted that the order dated 25.7.1996 does not speak about the supersession of delegation of power given in the earlier orders. Necessary order copies were enclosed therewith.