HARIPRASAD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order of detention under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner is a resident of Bargarh in the district of Sambalpur who was served with the order of detention dt. 10-6-1985 (Annexure-1) along with the grounds of detention and some documents in support thereof to the effect that with a view to preventing him from smuggling primary gold of foreign origin and foreign make wrist watches, engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping these smuggling goods and dealing in these smuggled goods, his detention under S. 3(1) of the Act is necessary. The petitioner was arrested and detained with effect from 12-6-1985. On receipt of the order of detention as aforesaid, the petitioner submitted his representation on 28-6-1985.

(2.) According to the petitioner, there has been a violation of Art. 22(5) in not disposing of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and as such his detention was contrary to law. One of the grounds of the detention has been challenged by the petitioner as stale having no proximate connection with the alleged prejudicial activities attributed to him. According to the petitioner, the other grounds of detention are either non-existent or irrelevant and at any rate no opportunity having been given to him for effective representation, the order of detention on those grounds cannot be sustained.

(3.) The State of Orissa represented through the Secretary, Home Department, and the Additional Secretary, Home Department, who are the opposite parties filed a counter-affidavit stating that on the basis of the materials which had been furnished to the petitioner, the State Government were satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from smuggling goods, engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping those smuggled goods and in dealing in them, it was necessary to detain him under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Act and accordingly, the order No. 2937 dt. 10-6-1985 (Annexure-1) was passed. It was further stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 28-6-1985 has been rejected by the Government after careful consideration and the fact of rejection has been communicated to the petitioner in Home Department letter No. 3502/C dt. 23-7-1985. Their stand is that the conviction of the petitioner in respect of the incident dt. 1-1-1970 and his conviction under S. 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has got rational connection with the object of the detention as it has a reasonable nexus to ascertain the tendency of the petitioner in getting involved in the act of smuggling. To the allegations of the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition that he does not own any shop premises known as "Time and Steel," and has got no connection whatsoever in such shop from where 76 pieces of foreign wrist watches were seized on 11-11-1984, the opposite parties in their counter-affidavit stated that shop premises "Time and Steel" belongs to Shri Govinda Prasad Chapodia who is the son of the petitioner and that the petitioner is the main person behind dealing in such contraband goods as per the intelligence. So far as the primary gold and golden ornaments are concerned which were recovered and seized from the possession of the petitioner from his residential premises under the occupation of the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner was present at the time of search and seizure and had signed the Panchanama as the owner of the seized goods. The primary gold-seized from the petitioner on 11-11-1984 includes a gold biscuit and the facimal inscribed over which indicates that the same is of foreign origin. It was thus contended that the order of detention was passed taking all these facts into consideration and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be called in question in this writ application.