VED PAL ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two connected petitions Cr. W.P. No. 68 of 1991 and Cr. W. P. No 69 of 1991. Both these petitions are under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the detent on order dated 13-3-1989, Annexure P-3.

(2.) I will draw the facts from Cr. W. No. 68 of 1991. Ved Pal Anand petitioner has urged that the respondent, Union of India, purporting to exercise powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the 'Act' in brief) ordered the detention of the petitioner by passing an order dated 30-9-1988 in pursuance of which, he was detained on 6-10-1988. Copy of the detention order is Annexure P-1. On 2-11-1988, the Additional Secretary to Government of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue made declaration No. 308/88 under Section 9(1) of the Act that he was satisfied with regard to the fact that the petitioner was likely to abet the smuggling of the goods into Bombay. Copy of this declaration is Annexure P-2 After making of the declaration, the under Secretary of Revenue, exercising powers under Section 8(f), read with Section 9(2) of the Act. confirmed the detention order of the petitioner Annexure P1 and further directed that under Section 10 of the Act, the petitioner be detained for a period of 2 years from the date of his detention, i.e. from 6-10-1988. Copy of the order is Annexure P-3. The grounds for detention relate to the import of Polyster Filament Yarn and Polyster Fibre in the name of M/s Jasmine and M/s Expo international, under the duty exemption entitlement certificate scheme. It had been alleged that the said two concerns obtained five actual user's advance licencee each in the financial years 1994-88 from the Joint Chief Controller of Export and Imports, New Delhi for import of said goods free from custom duty subject to the condition that they would manufacture (a) readymade garments out of the imported yarn, (b) polyster spun yarn out of imported polyster fibre and export the resultant products abroad within a period of six months from the date of first clearance of imparted consignment. It is alleged that both the said concerns had imported the said material, but did not export the resultant products. The petitioner states that he had no connection whatsoever with the two concerns. That the order of detention had been passed with a mala fide intention, with the sole purpose of harassing and humiliating the petitioner and his family members by assuming that the petitioner and his son Ashok Anand were actually controlling these firms and had taken active part in the import and sale of filament yarn and polyster fibre. The firm M/s. Jasmine is stated to be a partnership firm between Naresh Chadha and Krishan Lal Chawla. The respondents had passed the detention order of Naresh Chadha and Krishan Lal Chawla on the same grounds, as alleged qua the partner, but these detention orders were revoked by the Advisory Board. The petitioner had challenged the detention order and declaration order, through C.W. No. 545/88 and 576/88 but the same had been dismissed on 17-3-1989. The petitioner had thus suffered, the entire period of detention and had come out on 5-10-1990. The declaration Annexure P-2 and the detention order Annexure P-3 are being challenged on fresh grounds which were not taken in the earlier petition.

(3.) IN spite of the opportunity allowed, no return was filed by the respondent and as such, it may be assumed that the facts stated in the writ petition are correct.