AMRITLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of these two writ petitions ought to be mentioned before we proceed to decide the questions of law raised in them. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 26 of 1986 the detenu had been originally detained by an order of detention passed under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act", by the Government of Maharashtra. That order was of 18th July 1985 and subsequently the said order of detention was revoked by the Government of Maharashtra on 28th November 1985. On the same day, a fresh order of detention has been passed by the Government of Maharashtra under the same provision of law and on the same grounds.

(2.) In Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 1986, the original order of detention under S. 3 of the COFEPOSA Act was passed by the Government of Maharashtra on 8th April 1985. After the Advisory Board submitted its opinion to the Government, the Government revoked the order of detention by virtue of the duty cast upon it under S. 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act. That order was passed on 28th of June 1985. On 4th of November 1985 a fresh order of detention has again been passed against the detenu in this writ petition.

(3.) In the first petition the question that arises is, where an order of detention has been passed by the Government of Maharashtra and where subsequently the same authority revokes the order of detention, whether a fresh order of detention can be passed against the same detenu on the same grounds. The question that arises in the second petition is whether after a detenu has been released pursuant to an order of revocation, which is passed under S. 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act, the same authority can pass a fresh order of detention against the same detenu on the same grounds. Though the points arising in these two petitions are thus somewhat different, we have heard the Advocates for the petitioners and the Advocates for the respondents together because ultimately the interpretation of S. 11 of the COFEPOSA Act is involved in both the petitions.