ATUL SUNDERJI DADHIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dated 10.7.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, hereinafter referred to as "the Detaining Authority", in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, "the COFEPOSA Act") is under challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition has been filed by one Atul Dadhia, a friend of detenu Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar alias Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar. The order of detention was made on 10.7.2006. It is based on the grounds of detention dated 10.7.2006, recording that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods.

(2.) The order of detention and the grounds of detention, both dated 10.7.2006, were served on the detenu on 12.7.2006. The subjective satisfaction, as recorded in the grounds of detention, was mainly founded on the incident of 13/14.03.2006. On this day, the detenu was intercepted at Terminal-2, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, when he was allegedly found smuggling out of India foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rupees 33,06,667.60. His statements were recorded on 14.3.2006 and 28.3.2006 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He was shown arrested on 14.3.2006 under section 104 of the said Act. His smuggling activities were found to be falling under section 113(d) and (e) of the Customs Act, punishable under section 135 thereof. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and well organised manner in which the detenu had engaged in the prejudicial activities, the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction that unless detained, the detenu is likely to continue to engage in the prejudicial activities in future also and hence passed the impugned order of detention. He was also informed that he has a right to make representation/s to the detaining authority, the State Government, the Central Government and the Advisory Board against the detention order. It is against this backdrop the order of detention is under challenge in the present writ petition before us.

(3.) We heard Mrs Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State for quite some time and with their assistance went through the impugned order, the grounds of detention as well as the other material to which our attention was specifically drawn by them. Mrs Ansari, though initially advanced her arguments assailing the impugned order of detention on different grounds, having realised that we were not with her, ultimately confined her challenge only on the ground no.(ix) in the memo of petition and fairly stated that we need not deal with other grounds. Mr.Mhaispurkar, learned A.P.P. did not oppose this request. In the circumstances we heard Mrs.Ansari on ground no.(ix) in the memo of petition.