LAWS(MPH)-2001-7-24

ANJALI LAHIRI HARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 03, 2001
ANJALI LAHIRI HARIYA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who happens to be the wife of the detenu Lahiri Hariya is hereby assailing the correctness propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India. Revenue Finance Department dated 14-11-2000 whereby by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter referred to for convenience as COFEPOSA Ace). Her husband Lahiri Hariya Sb Vasant Hariya R/o, 23, Rajesh Nagar. Indore, has been detained. The petitioner mainly attacked the said order on following grounds:

(2.) Shri B.G. Neema pointed out in countering the submissions advanced by Shri Rawal Who has been assisted by Shri Amarsingh and Shri Bhagwansingh advocates that the order of detention which has been passed by the detaining authority has been well justified and supported by the material which reveals that there has been reasonable approach taken by the detaining authority and the detaining authority took the decision of detaining the detenu after due subjective satisfaction. Shri Neema submitted that the grounds of attack put-forth on behalf of the detenu are not sufficient enough to shatter the order of detention and the detention order cannot be called in any way perverse or illegal and therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed.

(3.) Shri Neema pointed out that the material which has been put-forth justifying the detention order is self eloquent and that shows that those documents have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the detention order which were relevant to the cause. He submitted further that copies of all those documents have been furnished to the detenu and therefore, the detenu could file the effective representation which has been considered by the Government of India and. therefore when the matter was referred to the Board it has been also duly considered and both Government of India and the Board were pleased to dismiss the representation.