AJAIB SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJAIB Singh-petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and seeks quashing of order dated August 19, 1988 passed by Administrator, Union Territory, Delhi, under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. This order is claimed to be illegal. Since the same has not so far been served on the petitioner it is prayed that a direction be issued restraining the authorities from arresting him.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he is a permanent resident of village Libra, Distt. Ludhiana, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Custom Officials raided his premises on 25th May 1988 and 2nd June 1988 at his village but nothing incriminating was recovered; that the petitioner has been involved falsely for ulterior motives; that on 23.4.1988, the police officers of Babugarh Police Station, District Ghaziabad, (U.P.) at the UP-Delhi Border intercepted two trucks bearing Nos. HYO 7141 and HYQ 2297. These trucks were found to be carrying polyester synthetic yarn allegedly of foreign origin. On the basis of the information sent by the police, the D.R.I. officers reached at the spot and took custody of the trucks and the yarn. The trucks were taken by the D.R.I. to their office in Delhi where the trucks were searched and a Panchnama was drawn. The Panchnama showed the seizure of documents which are as under :-

(3.) THE order of detention has been challenged on the basis (a) that the detention order of Kulwant Singh driver had been revoked by the Delhi Administration on the basis of advice of COFEPOSA Advisory Board. The copy of the revocation order is Annexure P-2. The detention of Bhavensh Kumar alias Pappu who was alleged to be a joint owner of the synthetic yarn was revoked by the Delhi Administration after reconsidering his case and a copy of the order is Annexure P-3. The detention order of Ramesh Kumar was quashed by the Delhi High Court and in view of these revocations of detention orders of Kulwant Singh and Bhavenesh Kumar and the quashing of the order against Ramesh Kumar, the order passed against the petitioner was discriminatory and has been passed in order to harass and humiliate him (b) the alleged prejudicial activity is dated 23.4.1988 and the order of detention was passed on 19th August 1988 and there was no explanation for the delay in passing of the order and there was no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the order of detention; that petitioner had been allowed bail in May 1988 and there is no allegation that while on bail he indulged in any prejudicial activity (c) that there was no allegation of any prejudicial activity on the part of the petitioner at any earlier stage and it was a case of single prejudicial activity and the order was not justified (d) Kulwant Singh had retracted from his statement and that statement was a vital document which has not been taken into consideration by the detaining authority. Had this document been taken into consideration, the authority would not have passed the detaining order; (e) there was no evidence to connect the trucks with the petitioner; (f) there was no evidence to show that the seized Synthetic Yarn was in fact of foreign origin; (g) that since the alleged incident is now more than 5 years old and the petitioner is an old and sick person leading a retired life, no purpose contemplated by COFEPOSA can be served by detaining the petitioner.