LAWS(BOM)-2006-4-184

PARESH PURSHOTTAM GOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 18, 2006
Paresh Purshottam Gor Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is brother of the detenu, has impugned the order of detention dated 21.9.2005 passed by Respondent No.2, Principal Secretary (A & S) and detaining authority, Government of Maharashtra. By the said order, the detenu came to be detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The detenu came to be detained as the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that he was involved in smuggling of goods and unless detained, the detenu was likely to continue to engage in aforesaid prejudicial activities in future also. The detention order along with grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 25.11.2005.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.Naresh Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.S. Mhaispurkar, learned A.P.P. for the State. In this petition although many grounds have been pleaded, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only few grounds. However, as the petition can be allowed only on the basis of one ground, we do not find it necessary to advert to the remaining grounds which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said ground is ground no.13(IX), which can briefly be stated as under:

(3.) AS far as this document i.e. application to the Settlement Commission by the detenu is concerned, we find that detaining authority has taken an absolutely contradictory stand. In its affidavit affirmed on 10.3.2006, the detaining authority has categorically stated that "the detenu had made application to the Settlement Commission on 12.8.2005 and the copy of the same was forwarded to me along with representation dated 12.8.2005. Therefore, I was aware that detenu had already approached the Settlement Commission". However, in the additional affidavit affirmed by the detaining authority on 3.4.2006, the detaining authority has taken an absolutely diametrical stand. In the said affidavit, the detaining authority has stated as under: