Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 694 - HC - CustomsDetention of appellant's husband - Habeas Coprus - Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - prevention from abatement of the smuggling of goods - Held that:- Division Bench of this Court while deciding the detention matter with respect to the co-detenu - Ajay Kumar Sharma in its judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015 has taken a judicial note with respect to the spacious plea which has been taken by the sponsoring authority que the "holidays" which were intervening in forwarding the reply / comments is concerned - though the sponsoring authority was well aware about the view taken by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Petition, in case of the co-detenu that it has taken a judicial notice of the plea with respect to "holidays" is concerned, the sponsoring authority did not bother to take its note and improve upon itself. Delay in deciding the representation by the detaining authority between 12th December, 2014 and 2nd January, 2015 of about 20 days has not at all been explained, least satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. It has further not been explained in the said affidavit that why it took 20 days for effecting the verification of the identity and the address of the Petitioner and the detenu. The affidavit is totally silent on this aspect. - The affidavit is also silent on this aspect and the delay of 6 days is remained unexplained. Thus, there is in all 31 days delay, which has not at all been explained, least satisfactorily explained at the instance of the Additional Chief Secretary i.e. the Respondent No.2. It is also clear from the record that there is unsatisfactory explained delay of about 21 days i.e. from 12th December, 2014 to 2nd January 2015 at the behest of the sponsoring authority in forwarding the parawise comments to the detaining authority and according to us the said delay has not at all been satisfactorily explained by the sponsoring authority. - breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India at the behest of the Respondents has rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal. We are therefore of the view that the delay as stated herein above is not satisfactorily explained and continued detention of the detenu is in violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the order of detention stands vitiated. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|