SANDEEP ATMARAM PARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition the order of detention dated 11th March 1988 passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 under S.3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to preventing him from smuggling of gold has been impugned. The said order was served upon the detenu on 9th March 1995. Thereafter, Mr.N.N.Mookerjee, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, who was specially empowered in this behalf by the Central Government issued a declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. As such, the period of detention of the detenu got extended to two years by virtue of the said declaration.

(2.) A Full Bench of this court, in the instant petition considered the question as to whether non-apprising the detenu of his right to make representation to the authority by whom the declaration was made renders the declaration vitiated. The Full Bench by its judgment dated 31st August 1996 has held that:

(3.) WHEN the petition was called out for hearing, it was submitted that the original order of detention under S.3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act would not ipso facto be rendered void in view of the declaration being found unsustainable, since other compliances have been followed in the present case. However, since the period of one year as per the original order of declaration has expired on 9th March 1996, there really survives nothing. As such, by reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of detention in case proceedings are initiated under the SAFEMA Act against the petitioner or his relatives, this petition can and is disposed of.