KIRTI SUJIT SATAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, by the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority on 26.12.2005. It is submitted that the order of detention could not be served on the detenu as he was not available and ultimately he was arrested on 13.8.2007. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The grounds of detention, is a very long document and the material on the basis of which the grounds have been framed are 1712 pages comprising of 154 documents. We propose to dispose of this writ petition on a short question and would not go into the grounds of detention, in detail.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority. This counter affidavit discloses that the Detaining Authority had twice ordered detention of the detenu before actually she passed the order of detention. Sponsoring Authority made available material to the Detaining Authority on 26.9.2005, it was scrutinised and according to the Detaining Authority at that stage the proposal contained the material with 1498 pages. The Under Secretary considered the proposal and gave his endorsement on 13.10.2005 and file was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, who gave his endorsement on 21.10.2005, and on 21.10.2005 the file was forwarded to the Detaining Authority who called the discussion with the Sponsoring Authority. A meeting was held on 28.10.2005 and thereafter the proposals went back to the Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary in the normal bureaucratic fashion and again on 31.10.2005 file reached back to the Detaining Authority. She took 8 days to endorse the matter and formulated the grounds of detention, she got the grounds of detention typed, before signing the Order of Detention she received further generated material vide letters dated 31.10.2005 and 28.11.2005. Again same bureaucratic mode was adopted of sending file to the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Detaining Authority and then back and ultimately the Detaining Authority on 16.12.2005 approved the grounds and ordered the detention. On 26.12.2005 the Detaining Authority was again informed that some more material had been received on 22.12.2005. On 26.12.2005 ultimately the detention order was issued. Whatever has been stated in this paragraph is either based on what has been stated in the affidavit of Detaining Authority or from the file. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion when twice the Detaining Authority ordered the detention it took more than 15 days to pass an order but when ultimately the Order of Detention was issued, it was done within a day.