LAWS(BOM)-1997-6-151

SHAKEEL SAIT Vs. C.D. SINGH AND OTHERS

Decided On June 07, 1997
Shakeel Sait Appellant
V/S
C.D. Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the detention of his father by name Mustafa Ahmed Ali Merchant under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The detention order was issued under the COFEPOSA Act on 16th Feb. 1996 by respondent No. 1 who was, at that time, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority. The said order of detention is annexed to this petition as Annexure "A". The respondent No. l had also formulated the grounds of detention dated 16th Feb. 1996 which are annexed as Annexure "B" to this petition. Consequent to the said order of detention, the detenu was detained by 29th of Feb. 1996. At the time of his detention the detenu was served with the grounds of detention along with the order of detention and the documents and material relied on by the detaining authority. The initial order of detention was for a period of one year and the same was extended by further period of one year by .virtue of the declaration made under Sec. 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act on 25th March, 1996 which is annexed as Annexure "D" and the order of confirmation dated 1st June, 1996 issued under clause (f) of Sec. 8 of the said Act, and annexed as Annexure "E" to the petition.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the detention of the detenu are as follows:-

(3.) The reference has been made to the aforesaid facts in the grounds of detention and it is also stated in the grounds that the diamonds which were seized from the detenu were of the value of RS. 30,80,700.00 CIF and Rs. 38,00,000.00 LMV approximately. In the grounds of detention at Annexure "B", it is stated that the detaining authority passed the order of detention with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling diamonds in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The detaining authority had recorded his satisfaction that was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities in future.