MANJU NARESH JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu - Naresh P. Jain, impugned the detention order dated 22nd January 1999 passed by the 4th Respondent Mr. G. S. Sandhu, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, (Preventive Detention), Mantralaya, Mumbai, And Detaining Authority, detaining the detenu under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as, "cofeposa Act") and the declaration dated 24.2.1999 issued by the 2nd Respondent, Mr. D. S. Solanki, the Special Secretary - cum Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under section 9 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, extending the period of detention from one year to two years.

(2.) THE order of detention along with the grounds of detention also dated 22nd January 1999 was served on the detenu on 23rd January 1999. Xerox copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention, are annexed as Annexures "a" and "b" respectively to this petition. THE declaration under Section 9 (1) was served on the detenu on 28.2.1999, and its true copy is annexed as Annexure "d" to this petition.

(3.) GROUND 6 (i) has been replied to in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority. In the said paragraph the Detaining Authority has admitted that the reply dated 5.1. 1999 sent by Mr. Anil Balani, the detenu's counsel was not placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority and consequently there was no question of supplying its copy to the detenu. He has also averred in para 8 that the material which had been placed before him was sufficient for arriving at his subjective satisfaction. He has further averred therein that on account of non-supply of a copy of the written submission of Mr. Anil Balani to the detenu, the detenu's right of making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has not been impaired.