VIDYA GANAPATI SHANBHAG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the next friend of detenu-Shantaram Raghunath Sawant, seeks to quash and set aside an order of detention dated 18.6.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, (Appeals and Security) Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, against the detenu under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, "the COFEPOSA Act"). The order of detention dated 18.6.2005 is based on the grounds of detention dated 18.6.2005, recording that it is 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 18.6.2005, were served on the detenu on 6.5.2006. The smuggling activities of the detenu were found to be falling under section 113 read with section 50(2) of the Customs Act and Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the well organized manner in which the detenu is engaged in the prejudicial activities, the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction that unless detained, the detenu is likely to continue to engage in prejudicial activities in future also and hence passed the impugned order of detention. The detenu was also informed that he has a right to make representation/s to the detaining authority, State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board against the detention order. We have not made reference to the grounds of detention in detail since the learned counsel for the petitioner argued only one ground, that is, ground no.4 (xiv).

(3.) IT appears that the detaining authority received representation-dated 15.6.2006 on 20.6.2006 through the Superintendent of Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. For considering the representation as per the procedure adopted, para wise comments on the representation were called for from the sponsoring authority and the comments of the said authority were received on 26.6.2006. Thereafter the concerned assistant prepared a detailed note on 1.7.2006 and forwarded it to the Under Secretary who, in turn, forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary. He received it on 3.7.2006. From 3.7.2006 till 18.7.2006 the Deputy Secretary was awaiting a report/opinion of the Advisory Board which, in fact, was received on 18.7.2006. The concerned file was thereafter processed and the confirmation order was issued on 26.7.2006. Then, the file was submitted by the Under Secretary to the Deputy Secretary, who made his endorsement on 28.7.2006 and forwarded the papers to the detaining authority. The representation was rejected on 29.7.2006. The objection for the delay was for the period between 18.7.2006 and 26.7.2006. Mr. Khan submitted that this delay of about eight days has not been explained either by the detaining authority or by the sponsoring authority in their affidavits.