9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents declaring that the order of detention passed against the first respondent Amritlal Chandmal Jain ("Amritlal") under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short `COFEPOSA') was illegal and it quashed the proceeding initiated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of property) Act, 1976 (for short `SAFEMA') against the respondents. The third appeal (Civil Appeal 1487/94) has been filed by the Competent Authority and is directed against the judgment dated June 23, 1993 of another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Competent Authority in which the Competent Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Such petitions, if and when filed, may be listed for preliminary hearing. Liberty to mention. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous." During the pendency of the second writ petition the detenu Amritlal was ordered to be released on parole by order date November 8, 1982. In the meanwhile the period of detention of Amritlal was reduced by the detaining authority up to August 16, 1983 when he was released from detention. Second writ petition was disposed of on July 10, 1985 by the following order:- "In so far as these cases are concerned, the period during which the petitioners were on parole shall be taken into account while calculating the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Out of that M/s Agra Bullion Company claimed ownership of 301.203 kgs. of silver. Amritlal approached the Settlement Commissioner under the Income-tax Act on December 7, 1984 and the proceedings were admitted by the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commissioner, it would appear, passed orders in favour of Amritlal and Agra Bullion Company for releasing the seized silver to them. By letter dated October 21, 1991 the Competent Authority requested the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I not to release the silver to Amritlal and Agra Bullion Company until the proceedings under SAFEMA, which had been initiated in the meanwhile, were concluded. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I by his letter dated November 4, 1991 expressed his inabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . High Court took notice the decision dated April 29, 1993 of another Division Bench where it was held that detention of Amritlal was illegal and since the very foundation for initiation of proceedings under SAFEMA was knocked out the proceedings under SAFEMA had come to an end and there was nothing further that was required in SCA 7623/92 to be considered which had thus become infructuous. Aggrieved by the judgment dated June 23, 1993 (in SCA 7623/92) Competent Authority has filed appeal in this Court (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1487/84). We may also note that the High Court in its judgment dated April 29, 1993 had held that the order of detention of Amritlal was bad on two counts, viz., (1) that second order of detention on the same grounds could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport his submission he relied upon detailed observations of this Court in paras 40,41 and 42 of the judgment in Amratlal Prajivandas case and particularly to para 56 where this Court summarized its decision on various issues raised before it in that case. We are concerned with sub-para 3(b) of para 56 which is as under:- "(b) An order of detention to which Section 12-A is applicable as well as an order of detention to which Section 12-A was not applicable can serve as the foundation, as the basis, for applying SAFEMA to such detenu and to his relatives and associates provided such order of detention does not attract any of the sub-clauses in the proviso to Section 2(2)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders of detention were in force Mr. Goswamy would have been right but, unfortunately, for him that is not so. There were challenges to both the orders of detention. True, it is not enough that there is a mere challenge and that challenge has to be upheld or negatived by the Court. When there is challenge to the legality of detention in writ of habeas corpus the challenge is in effect to the legality and validity of the grounds on which the order of detention is made. It is not that to challenge the legality and validity of the grounds on which order of detention is passed the detenu has to file a separate writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari. Once the detenu is released during pendency of his writ petition has become infructuou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
