TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority vitiated and thus turned out to be illegal. On the question of representation, the records depict that the same was sent to the President of India on 10th April, 2001 and the same was sent to the Ministry of Finance on August 16, 2001 - some explanation has been put forth, but we need not, however, detain ourselves in dealing with the same since we wish to state that non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a serious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be declared unlawful and illegal and thus resultantly cannot be sustained. Thus the writ petition succeeds. The detention order stands quashed and set aside - 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution, challenging an order of detention dated 1st March, 2001 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 it appears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and it is this detention which the petitioner contended is without the authority of law and constitute an infringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights. 4.The reason for detention has been and as recorded by the Department is that the Bill of Entry No. 235337, dated 19-7-2000 was filed in the name of M/s. Goutham Enterprises for clearance of 300 numbers of ACER CD ROM drive 50X by Customs House Agents, M/s. Sanjay Forwarders (P) Ltd. According to the Department this Bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned advocate appearing in support of the petition with his usual eloquence contended that the incident of 24th July, 2000 had become stale and irrelevant and it is too remote in point of time and as such question of there being any detention order on the basis thereof would not arise. Mr. Mani further contended upon reference to the fact situation as adverted herein before in this judgment that the detenu was arrested on 25-7-2000 for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act and was remanded to judicial custody on 26-7-2000. The detenu was however enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO. III) on 11-8-2000 and the Department after completing the investigation issued the required show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion before the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act filed by the detenu on 8-2-2001 the Settlement Commission on 15-2-2001 after hearing the applicants and the Department, was pleased to admit the applications of the detenu and passed an order directing the detenu to make payment of additional duty of ₹ 11,56,803/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Apart therefrom, the Commission further observed that the Commission shall have the exclusive jurisdiction on the case of the detenu, in terms of Section 127F(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any officer of customs, to the exclusion of all other officers of customs and it is on this score that Mr. Mani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order of the Commission has not only transgressed the rights of the petitioner but in our view speaks a volume about the conduct of the officials rendering the proceeding before the Detaining Authority vitiated and thus turned out to be illegal. 13.By reason of the aforesaid, we feel it expedient not to express any opinion as regards the question of delay rendering the charges stale or being too remote. A statute has been engrafted in the Statute Book but that does not, however, mean and imply that the concerned official would be at liberty to whittle down the liberty of the citizens of the country. The constitutional sanction for preventive detention cannot be said to be without any limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of this Court in Rajindra v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division Anr. [1994 (2) Supp. SCC 716] recording the need and requirement of the Central Government officials to be alive to the situation cannot but be said to apposite in the context. 14.Incidentally, the other issue pertains to delayed consideration of the representation and it is on this score, a Three-Judge Bench decision in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu Anr. [1999 (1) SCC 417] unequivocally condemned the delay for even five days in the manner as below : We are, therefore, of the opinion that the delay from 9-2-1998 to 14-2-1998 remains unexplained and such unexplained delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu. The corollary thereof is that further de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
