TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of section 73 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (F.E.R.A.). In respect of both the detenus, separate orders have been issued on 3rd September, 1996, by the detaining authority Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit). The said orders dated 3-9-1996 have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (COFEPOSA). The detaining authority was satisfied with respect to the said detenus Sajid Ahmed and Kasim Dhorajiwala that with a view to preventing them in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange, it was necessary to make an order of detention. Both the orders of detention were served on the detenus on September 20, 1996. 3. It may be mentioned that two more petitions have been filed viz. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1996, filed by Madan Singh, claiming to be a friend and employee of the detenu Dhirajlal Visharia and Criminal Writ Petition No. 134 of 1997, filed by Smt. Rehana Imtiyaz Dholkawala, wife of the detenu I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouped into separate files marked A, B, C D. It is not necessary here to refer to the details of the statement of Imtiyaz Dholkawala. Suffice it to say that, he admits dealings in foreign exchange where Kasim, the detenu in Writ Petition No. 1385 of 1996 was involved. Imtiyaz attributes specific roles to both the detenus with whom we are dealing viz. Kisim and Sajid Peshimam. The sale and purchase of foreign exchange amounting to several lacs of US dollars has been referred to in the statements of Imtiyaz. In the course of his statements, Imtiyaz has given details of the purchase of foreign exchange from (1) M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Limited, and (2) M/s. Wall Street Finance Limited- the two dealers in foreign exchange, authorised by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the F.E.R.A. Between 27th October and 27th November 1995 T.F.E.B. purchased foreign currency from M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., D.N. Road Branch, Mumbai amounting to U.S.$. 6,85,000/- U.K. Sterling pounds 13,000/- and U.A.E. Dirhams 10,000/-. Similarly, from 28th October to 27th November 1995 T.F.E.B. purchased foreign exchange from M/s. Wall Street Finance Limited, Mohammad A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of searches and seizures. 6. The grounds of detention further set out the details of the foreign exchange purchased from time to time as per the documents in the four files A, B, C D. It appears that 124 forged and fabricated B.T.Q. applications were used for the purchase of US$ 550/- in the name of each passenger and the foreign exchange so acquired from the authorised dealers was sold in the open market at a much higher rate. Several B.T.Q. application forms have been seized. The said B.T.Q. forms were kept handy with T.F.E.B. to justify their possessing substantial amount of foreign exchange. The sponsoring authority viz. the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, entered into correspondence with the concerned Airlines to ascertain the genuineness of the names of passengers who were supposed to have travelled on Air India, Royal Nepal Airlines, International Airlines of the United Arab Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Alitalia and Kuwait Airways. 980 Directives were issued in the names of the passengers whose names had been mentioned in the bogus and fabricated B.T.Q. application forms. However, it transpired that none of the passengers had availed of any foreign exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded on 18th and 19th December, 1995. The contention urged before us is that having regard to the voluminous documents, the detaining authority did not have sufficient time for considering the said material before issuing the order of detention and as a result of paucity of time, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which has mechanically adopted the proposal of the sponsoring authority in issuing the orders of detention. -A. The second contention is that there is unexplained delay in issuing the orders of detention inasmuch as the main incident had occurred on 27th November, 1995. The detenus were arrested soon thereafter and investigation must have ended in December 1995 and hence, there is un-explained delay in issuing the order of detention on the 3rd September, 1996. The third contention is that there was no further incident after 27th November, 1995 and there was no act or omission on the part of the detenus thereafter which necessitated the passing of the orders of detention. In the absence of any prejudicial activity between 27th November, 1995 and 3rd September 1996, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spent has been satisfactorily explained having regard to the magnitude of investigation. 13. Regarding the third contention that there was no act or omission between 27th November, 1995 and 3rd September, 1996 on the part of the detenus which necessitated the passing of the orders of detention, it is contended that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prognosis as to the future conduct of a person based on his past conduct, as reflected in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention set out the details of the illegal transactions in foreign exchange purchase and sale spread over a substantial period involving a number of persons and a large number of documents. It was a continuous course of conduct, as reflected from a series of transactions on the basis of which a satisfaction has been reached that the unauthorised transactions indulged in by the detenus had affected the foreign exchange resources of the country adversely. On the basis of this, subjective satisfaction has been recorded that unless the detenus were detained, they were likely to engage in the aforesaid prejudicial activities in future also and, therefore, it was necessary to detain them under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. 15. In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others 1986CriLJ786 , the Apex Court was dealing with the order of detention under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. In para 62 of the Judgment, dealing with the grievance of improper communication of the grounds of detention in a language not understood by the detenu, who said that he only understood Gujarathi and not English, Hindi or Malyalam, the Court observed at page 696 that there was no rule of law that commonsense should be put in cold storage while considering constitutional provisions for safeguards against misuse of powers by authorities though these constitutional provisions should be strictly construed. The detenu was feigning lack of knowledge of English ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have formulated the grounds of detention in the short time at its disposal. It, therefore, follows that the detaining authority has adopted the draft grounds verbatim and/or the proposal placed before him by the sponsoring authority and hence, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which renders the orders of detention illegal. Though ground No. 1 is extensive, the sum and substance of it is that, having regard to the number of documents and the number of pages, Shri Verma could not have himself perused and scanned all the documents and the material and could not have himself formulated the grounds of detention as he claims to have done. 18. In the affidavit of Shri S.K. Agarwal, the sponsoring authority at Mumbai, the dates of the proposal being forwarded to the head office at Delhi, have been set out. In para 2 of the affidavit it is stated that after collecting the relevant material and on its examination, a joint proposal was sent to the Head Office of the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi on 18th April 1996. It further appears that some queries were received from the Head Office which were replied by the sponsoring authority from Mumbai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make afresh order under the new Act. The minds of the authorities having already been made up as to the expediency of making an order of detention against them, an elaborate application of mind, such as is now suggested, does not appear to me to be necessary at all. This was a case of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 where the orders were served on the detenus on 26th February 1950 and the grounds of detention were served on them on 14th March 1950. The Apex Court rejected the argument of bad faith based on the fact that a large number of orders were passed over-night and dismissed the appeal. 21. In A.K. Gopalan and others v. Government of India, 1966CriLJ602 , the Constitution Bench considered similar argument where, as many as, 140 orders were passed on the same day and the contention was that there was non-application of mind by the Government of India before, as many as, 140 orders were passed on the same day and this fact itself shows that mind could not have been applied to each individual case before so many orders are passed, all on one day. The Apex Court was considering the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of Habeas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt came to the conclusion that the detaining authority could not have possibly applied its mind to the voluminous documentary evidence which was placed before him and, therefore, quashed the order of detention. With respect, we do not think that the ratio of the above decision has any application to the facts of the case before us. We have already indicated earlier, and we will elaborate later, that the proposal had reached the detaining authority along with 2272 out of 2301 pages much earlier. The proposal was sent to the Head Office on 18th April, 1996 which consisted of as many as 2272 pages. It was only the additional material in few pages, (in all 29 pages) which was sent on subsequent dates, which, in turn was forwarded by the Head Office of the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority immediately. 23. Both the learned Counsel Shri Khan and Shri Gupte placed reliance on three un-reported decisions of this Court. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 397 of 1992 of Mohd. Ahmed Ibrahim, decided on 22nd April, 1992 (Puranik Chapalgaonkar, JJ.), the proposal consisted of 262 pages. The order of detention was issued by the detaining authority in Delhi on 9th April, 1991 though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uffer from non-application of mind and was, therefore, set aside. These findings are to be found in para 14 of the Judgment. 25. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992 of Smt. Ayesha Shaikh, decided by the Aurangabad Bench - A.D. Mane and M.S. Vaidya, JJ. -- on 29th April, 1992, the order of detention was issued on the 31st January, 1992. The proposal consisted, of 586 pages. Many documents were received by the detaining authority on 31st January, 1992 itself and even the final revised proposal was submitted to the detaining authority on 31st January, 1992 itself. There was nothing to show as to when exactly the detaining authority had received the earlier papers and had started scanning them. It was in these facts that the Court came to the conclusion that the detaining authority could not have himself processed, and scanned the voluminous bulky record and documents and considered the material and at the same he could not have himself formulated the grounds of detention within a short span of time. It was, therefore, manifest that the detaining authority had failed to apply his mind to all the material placed before him for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. These concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 foolscape closely typed pages and it was held by the Court that, having regard to the paucity of time at the fag end of the office hours on 7th March, 1991, which was available to the detaining authority to apply its mind to the proposal, and the urgency shown by the sponsoring authority in getting the detention order made by the State Govt., the detaining authority could not have possibly applied its mind at all in arriving at its satisfaction under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the COFEPOSA. These conclusions are to be found in para 21 of the judgment at page 3632-33 of the report. We do not think that the ratio of the two cases discussed in this para can have any application to the facts of the cases before us. 27. In Smt. Bhanumati Arvind Patel v. The Union of India and others, Cri. W.P. No. 1416 of 1989 decided by the Division Bench of M.L. Pendse and D.J. Moharir, JJ., on 14th and 15th March, 1990, this Court was dealing with an order of detention issued on 9th November, 1989, under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The detenu had obtained a bail from this Court on 9th October, 1989 itself and or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3th December, 1991 and had continued till 31st January 1992 when the detaining authority had passed the order of detention. In para 25 above, we have already referred to the facts in Smt. Ayesha Shaikh's case while dealing with the judgment of Aurangabad Bench in criminal Writ Petition No. 55 of 1992. The Division Bench of Mohta and Shah, JJ., preferred to follow the ratio of the decision in Smt. Reshma Sudhakar Hegde's case decided by Kurdukar and Sambre, JJ., (Cri. W.P. No. 627 of 1992), though her co-detenu Smt. Ayesha Shaikh had been released by the Aurangabad Bench. In the result, the petition was dismissed by Mohta and Shah, JJ., on 6th April, 1993. 29. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 82 of 1993 of Shaikh Anwar s/o Shaikh Umar v. The Union of India and others, decided by V.P. Tipnis and M.L. Dudhat, JJ., on 27th July, 1993 the order of detention under section 3(1) of COFEPOSA was issued on 8th October, 1992. The papers were sent to the detaining authority in several installments, as has happened in the cases before us. The last batch of papers was sent on 29th September, 1992 and this conclusion was arrived at by the Division Bench after perusing the file. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining authority in Delhi, we had requested Shri Agarwal appearing for the Union of India to produce the files for our perusal. We have perused the same. It is true that the entire material consists of 2301 pages. However, it is necessary to peruse the list list of documents relied upon which is Annexure C in Writ Petition No. 1212 of 1996. The list runs into 6 foolscape typed pages covering 88 documents. Documents at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 are panchanamas dated 27th November 1995 and run into 10 pages. The fourth document viz. panchanama dated 27th November 1995 refers to the seizure of the Basic Travel Quota (B.T.Q.) application forms from the business premises of T.F.E.B. They are printed forms in the format prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under the F.E.R.A. The forms contain some names of the passengers and the passport numbers. The pages covered by the four files A to D which were seized under the panchanama dated 27th November, 1995 are from 11 to 1039. Each B.T.Q. form is of one page only. We have perused the same. It would only need a glance at the application form where some names and passport numbers and basic details are mentioned. The total number of application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongwith a remand application in respect of the detenu Sajid Ahmed and the order passed by C.M.M. on 20th December and 22nd December, 1995. This document is only of 16 pages. 33. Documents Sr. Nos. 30 to 40 (pages 1853 to 1954) are the copies of the letters issued by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai to certain persons, airlines and authorised dealers in foreign exchange and replies received from them. Document at Sr. No. 41 to 79 (pages 1955 to 2278) are the directives issued by the Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai to several persons whose names appeared in the B.T.Q. forms. The directives are in the form of an order under section 33(2) of the F.E.R.A. requesting the concerned person to furnish information about his having purchased the foreign exchange from T.F.E.B., the date of his travel abroad, name of the airlines, ticket number etc. The directives are in the cyclostyled form and none of 980 persons to whom directives were addressed confirmed his or her having travelled or availed of the foreign exchange as mentioned in the bogus B.T.Q. application form. After some directives, replies of the concerned persons have been annexed. Document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same Wing of the Ministry of Finance, it is a team work, and is undertaken without entering into formal correspondence to ensure expeditious disposal of the matters as well as to ensure secrecy and to do away with red tapism. Aging in para 8 of the affidavit Shri Prabhat Kumar has stated as under; It is submitted that it is a matter of team work of the staff of COFEPOSA. Cell of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who are directly under the Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who is the detaining authority, as well as the COFEPOSA. Cell staff of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. Similarly, from time to time, the officials from the respective offices of the Enforcement Directorate, who are required to visit New Delhi either to the Head Office or to the Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, for necessary instructions and/or guidance and/or clarifications, as and when called for, are also supposed to keep track of their pending matters, and seek necessary instructions, clarifications, directions etc. if any. 35. Our attention was also invited to the fact that in several matters decided by this Court, this prac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f letter dtd. 3-7-96 received from Al Samit International and reply dt. 8-7-96) 12-7-96 2 iv) Replies sent to H.Qrs. to their letters of Al Samit International dt 20-6-96 and 3-7-96 18-7-96 3 v) Additional material viz. Representation dated 18-6-96 of Kasim H- Dhorajiwala, reply dt. 18-7-96 by Enforcement Directorate representation dated 3-7-96 of Al Samit International and reply dt. 8-7-96 and letter dt. 20.6,96 of Al Samit International and reply dated 3-7-96 25-7-96 9 vi) Clarification sent to H.Qrs. to their letter dt. 26-7-96 26-7-96 1 vii) Reply dt. 2-8-96 regarding their letter dated 30-7-96 13-8-96 1 viii) Clarification sent to H.Qrs. 23-8-96 1 37. The above movement of the papers from the sponsoring authority in Mumbai to its head office in Delhi and then immediately from head office to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etaining authority. We have perused the files of the sponsoring authority in Mumbai, its head office in Delhi as also that of the detaining authority and we are satisfied that the proposal alongwith 2272 pages was initially sent from Mumbai to Delhi on 18th April, 1996 and only some additional information and material, in all running into 29 pages, was sent on different dates between 4th July and 30th August, 1996. As indicated earlier, the Central Screening Committee in its meeting held on 21st May, 1996 at Delhi had cleared the proposal. In this state of affairs reflected from the original file, statement in the affidavit of Shri Pal that the material was sent to the detaining authority on 30th August, 1996 must be understood as referring to the whole material which had then remained to be sent. At any rate, the statement appears to us to be inaccurate and having perused the files, we are satisfied that the joint proposal with 2272 pages was initially sent to Delhi as far back as on 18th April, 1996 and subsequent information was sent from time to time between 4th July and 30th August, 1996. The chart reproduced in para 36 clearly shows the correct position. 39. Having perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the cases before us. Those cases were decided on their own peculiar facts, where on the material that was placed before this Court, a clear finding has been recorded that the detaining authority had no sufficient time to apply its mind before passing the order of detention. That is certainly not the case before us. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the first contention. 41. The second contention urged before us is about the alleged unexplained delay between the date of incident 27th November 1995 and 3rd September 1996 the date on which the orders of detention were issued. In this behalf, it is contended that as far as detenue Sajid Ahmed is concerned, he was arrested on 19-12-1995 and was released on bail on the 4th January 1996. As far as detenue Kasim is concerned, he was not arrested at all. It is contended that since the investigation had ended in December 1995, there was no reason to delay the passing of the orders of detention till 3rd September 1996. 42. Reply to this contention is to be found in para 3 of the affidavit of Shri Verma as also in the affidavit of Shri Agrawal in the first petition relating to Sajid Ahmed. As far as the second petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Activities Act, 1985. The incident had occurred on the night between 29th and 30th December 1986 when the detenue's truck was found to be carrying 77 sealed cases containing 2040 bottles of different brands of scotch whisky, beer etc. The detenue had purchased the liquor from the Wine Merchants of Vanswada. On the question of delay in making the order of detention the Court emphasised the difficulties faced by the sponsoring authority in making a thorough investigation into the foreign exchange racketeering in determining the identity of persons engaged in these operations which have a deleterious effect on the national economy. The Court observed that quite often these activities are carried on by persons forming a syndicate and having a wide network. In para 9 of the judgment, at page 1260 of the report, the following observations have been made. 9. In the enforcement of a law relating to preventive detention like the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 there is apt to be some delay, between the prejudicial activities complained of under section 3(1) of the Act and the making of an order of detention. When a person is detect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detaining the person. 44. After making the above observations, a caution has been sounded in para 10 of the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Shah's case (supra) for guidance of the High Courts that a distinction must be drawn between the delay in making an order of detention under the COFEPOSA and the delay in complying with the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The rule as to unexplained delay in taking action is not an inflexible rule. In para 10 of the judgment, this is what the Apex Court observed at page 1260:- 10. Viewed from this perspective, we wish to emphasise and make it clear for the guidance of the different High Courts that a distinction must be drawn between the delay in making of an order of detention under a law relating to preventive detention like the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the delay in complying with the procedural safeguards of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It has been laid down by this Court in a series of decisions that the rule as to unexplained delay in taking action is not inflexible. Quite obviously, in case of mere delay in, making of an order of detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to its earlier decision in Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 1982CriLJ150 , where it was held that Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases, delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority . In para 9 of the judgment, the Court has referred to its earlier decisions, including the decision in Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah's case (supra). In para 11 of the judgment, at page 229 of the report, the Apex Court concluded that no hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily explained such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of unexplained delay. We are, therefore, of the view that the ratio of the decision in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar's case can have no application to the cases before us. 48. We may now refer to some of the decision's of this Court, on which reliance was placed by Shri Khan and Shri Gupte. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 80 of 1991 of Manharlal Karsandas Dattani, decided on 1st August 1991, the order of detention was passed on 15th December 1990 and it transpired from the pleadings that though the Screening Committee had cleared the proposal on 29th June 1990, it was forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority as late as on 16th October 1990. Reference was made to some of the decisions of the Apex Court and it was held in para 12 of the Judgment that it is the duty of the Court to examine the explanation offered for delay in each matter and though it may be possible to excuse a longer period of delay while the investigations were actually in progress, depending upon the complexity of the case and its ramifications, when it comes to unexplained delay which is caused purely due to tardiness of the authorities, the Court ought to be vigilant and stri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initially sent by the sponsoring authority from Mumbai to its head office in Delhi on 18th April 1996. The investigation related to unearthing a foreign exchange racket. More than a thousand bogus and fabricated Basic Travel Quota (B.T.Q.) application forms were seized from the premises of Travel Fuel Exchange Bureau (T.F.E.B.). Statements of the detenues and number of persons were recorded. The premises of Al Samit International Travels Tours were raided on 18th December, 1995. Indian currency worth ₹ 11,30,000/- was recovered from the premises of Al Samit I.T. T. The T.F.E.B. had purchased foreign exchange of U.S. $6,85,000/-, 13,000/- U.K. Sterling Pounds and 10,000/- U.A.E. Dirhams from M/s. Thomas Cook Company during the one month from 27th October 1995 to 27th November 1995. The T.F.E.B. had also purchased foreign exchange of 5,25,000/ - U.S. $ and 5,000/- U.K. Sterling Pounds from M/s. Wall Street Finance Limited during the one month from 28th October 1995 to 27th November 1995. Directives were sent to 980 passengers. It transpired that none of them had for travelling abroad availed of any foreign exchange, though it was so claimed in the bogus and fabricated B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Nazir Ahmed's case we have taken a similar view in para 23 of our Judgment that the delay had been satisfactorily explained and the live link had not snapped. In this view of the matter, we reject the second contention regarding delay. 52. The third contention is about the absence of any prejudicial act or omission on [he part of the detenues after 27th November 1995, in view of which, it is contended, that there was no nexus between the date of the incident and the passing of the order of detention and hence, the order is mala fide. In reply, it is contended that the nature of the activities and the various transactions in purchase and sale of foreign exchange clearly indicated the prejudicial nature of the activities of the detenu which were prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange resources of the country. In the affidavit filed by the detaining authority, it is contended that subjective satisfaction based even on a solitary incident is enough to manifest the future potentialities of the detenu indulging in similar prejudicial activities. In the instant case, we have a series of transactions spread over a period involving number of persons who were regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention urged by Shri Khan was about the sufficiency of the material for coming to the conclusion that detenu Sajid Ahmed was required to be detained. We have referred to the role of the detenu Sajid Ahmed, Manager of Al Samit International Tours and Travels. He was the one who was actively involved in preparing the bogus and fabricated B.T.Q. Forms containing fictitious numbers of Air tickets, none of them had availed of any foreign exchange for travelling abroad though 980 directives were issued with a view to ascertaining the genuineness of the names appearing in the B.T.Q. application forms. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the sufficiency of material on the basis of which the detaining authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction. That is not the scope of these writ petitions, in the circumstances, the contention is rejected. 54. In view of the above discussion, our conclusions are that there is no substance in any of the contentions, namely, (i) paucity of time at the disposal of the detaining authority; (ii) unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority; (iii) absence of any prejudicial act or omission on the part of either of the dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
