PRADIP MULCHAND MIRPURI Vs. M R DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 3rd October, 1979, passed against him by the second respondent State.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially arrested on 16th February, 1979 for an offence under the Customs Act on the allegation that he had given 146 wrist watches and 120 watch straps together valued at Rs. 90,930/- to one passenger by name Shyamdas Bhagwandas Budhrani at Hongkong Airport and that the said Budhrani was arrested at Bombay airport on 28th January, 1979 carrying the said contraband goods, and that the petitioner had also accompanied the said Budhrani from Hongkong by the very same flight. THE petitioner was produced in Court on 16th February, 1979, and was released on bail in the first week of March 1979. While the petitioner was still on bail pending the conclusion of the trial for the criminal offence for which he was arrested, on 3rd October, 1979 the impugned order of detention was passed against him under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) THE said order was executed against him on the 6th October, 1979, and he was supplied with the grounds of detention on that day. By his letter dated the 16th November, 1979, addressed to the Collector of Customs, the petitioner requested for the documents which were referred to in the grounds of detention and in particular the statements of the persons referred to therein on the basis of which the detention order had come to be passed. THEreafter by his letter dated 23rd November, 1979, addressed to the State Government, he renewed the said request and also made a reference to his letter dated 16th November, 1979 addressed to the Collector of Customs on the subject. Having not been obliged with the reply to either of his communications, he sent yet another letter to the State Government on the 4th December, 1979 reminding the Government of his earlier letter and renewing his demand for the documents called for therein. It may be mentioned that in all these three communications he had made it clear that in the absence of the documents requested for by him, it was not possible for him to make an effective representation to the grounds of detention and the explanation which he had given in the letters dated 23rd November, 1979 and 4th December, 1979 was on the basis of whatever material he had, and, therefore, was incomplete and that he looked forward to make a complete representation only after the receipt of the documents requested for by him. THE State Government by its letter dated 6th December, 1979, replied to the letter of 23rd November, 1979 addressed by the petitioner, and stated that the request of the petitioner for supply of copies of the statements and documents relating the detention and also the request for his release from detention could not be granted.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter filed the present petition on 9th April, 1980 challenging firstly the detention order itself on the ground that the grounds on which the impugned order was made had no livelink with the order. Secondly, the petitioner has also challenged the continued detention on the ground that in the absence of the copies of the documents that he had requested for, he had no opportunity to make an effective representation against the detention order, and, therefore, his continued detention is in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. To this petition Shri K.K. Uppal, secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home (Transport) Department, and who had passed the impugned order under the powers delegated to him in that behalf, filed his Return on the 30th June, 1980. So also Shri C.R. Mulherkar, Deputy secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) filed his Affidavit on the same day on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. In his return, Shri Uppal has denied that there is no livelink between the grounds on which the detention order has been passed and the detention itself and has explained that the delay in passing the impugned order was on account of the fact that a number of persons were involved in the smuggling of a huge quantity of wrist watches from abroad and hence the investigation in the case took long time. THEreafter the necessary proposal was sent to the Government and after considering the entire material, he was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to indulge in similar activities in future, and therefore, the detention order came to be passed thereafter. He thus denied that there was any delay in passing the order and that the delay of eight months between his arrest for the offence in question on 16th February, 1979 and the date of the order did not vitiate the impugned order as contended by the petitioner. As regards the non-supply of the copies of the relevant documents and statements, in paragraph 6 of his return, he has contended that the pith and substance of all the statements and other documents was mentioned in the grounds of detention and, therefore, the copies of the statements and documents were not necessary to the detenu for making an effective representation. In his affidavit, Shri Mulherkar has not referred to the delay alleged by the petitioner in passing the impugned order. However, in reply to the second contention viz. the non-supply of the documents, he has stated that as the grounds of detention are sufficiently elaborated, the Government though it not necessary to supply the copies of the statements referred to in the grounds of detention. He has added that moreover the investigations into the conspiracy case in which the detenu is involved were in delecate stage and were not finalised and as such at a premature stage i.e. before issue of show-cause notice to the detenu, the Government considered advised (sic) not to disclose the said statements in public interest.