MEHRUNNISA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the above mentioned petitioner for quashing the detention order dated 22-3-2000 passed under Section 3(1), (ii) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter shall be stated as COFEPOSA) by the respondent No. 2 State of Bihar, through Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to release the detenu Md. Abulias Ahmad alias Chander Singh, husband of the petitioner from his illegal detention in Central Jail at Bhagalpur.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Sk. Abulias Ahmad alias Chander Singh resident of Ram Krishna Pali Champashree More, P.O. Pradhan Nagar, Silliguri, District Darjeeling who has been confined in the Central Jail, Bhagalpur pursuant to the order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 dated 22-3-2000 under the COFEPOSA. The said detention order was served on the detenu on 12-4-2000 while the detenu was in Siliguri Special Jail in connection with another case involving kidnapping of a person. The grounds of detention together with list of documents were served on the detenu. On 16-5-2000 the detenu was taken to Bhagalpur Central Jail where he was informed that he was to be produced before the Advisory Board at Patna High Court which was on 17-5-2000. Accordingly, he was produced before the Advisory Board at Patna and he made his oral submission. It is the contention of the petitioner that the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board without giving him sufficient time to prepare his submissions or to take assistance of any Advocate or friend and, as such, the representations made by the detenu before the Advisory Board was not properly made because of lack of legal assistance, while the adversery the Officers of the State were armed with all legal facilities and, as such, there was violation of Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Again on 3-6-2000 the detenu made a representation to the Detaining Authority and to the Central Government but the detenu has not been informed about the fate of his representation. Before making such representation the detenu wanted the copy of the grounds and the documents in vernacular as the detenu was only known Urdu language and except signing in Hindi he had no knowledge of English or Hindi but the documents in full had never been supplied in Urdu language, thus, depriving the detenu to make proper representation which caused violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Such application through Superintendent of Siliguri Special Jail asking document in urdu language was made on 21-4-2000 but in spite of that the detenu was not supplied the same in the language known to him. It has further been alleged that the copy supplied to the detenu were illegible and, as such, effective representation could not be made by the detenu. It has also been contended that although on the grounds several documents had been referred to but as per ground No. (10) regarding the activities of some smuggling finding made by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had never been served on the detenu. There was also delay in initiating the detention order which would be relevant from the following dates : A truck was intercepted at Pasraha by the Custom Official on 27-2-1999. On 28-2-99 the truck was brought to Muzaffarpur and the Driver of the truck disclosed the name of the detenu before the authorities. On 28-4-1999 a complaint was filed by the Custom Officials before the Court of Economic Offence,