9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Petition under Art. 226 for habeas corpus to quash detention order u/s 3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Jurisdiction of the Court: The Court considered jurisdiction based on the physical act of detention occurring in Tamil Nadu, conferring jurisdiction upon the Court. The argument that a second petition should not be allowed was dismissed as the new ground of absence of reply to a representation arose after the rejection of the earlier petition by the Karnataka High Court, allowing this Court to entertain the writ petition. Right to Representation: Detainee's right to make a representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution was discussed. The detainee had made specific requests for vital documents to support further representations, which were not supplied by the State Government, depriving him of the right to pray for revocation of the order. The delay in considering the case and non-supply of documents rendered the detention order null and void. Contentions and Rejections: The contention that the third representation was not sent to the proper authority was rejected, stating that any body of the Government has a duty to forward the representation. The argument that the plea of non-supply of documents was not taken in the additional affidavit was dismissed, as the earlier affidavit's points were considered in conjunction with the subsequent affidavit. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, the detention order was set aside, and the detenu was to be set at liberty forthwith unless required otherwise.
|
