In the companyrse of search, Indian currency amounting to Rs.
Then came the Import Control Order, 1955 to place the policy regarding imports on a surer footing.
With specific reference to COFEPOSA, a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Amratlal Prajivandas14 has held that the enactment was relatable to Entry 3 of List III inasmuch as it provides for preventive detention for reasons companynected with the security of the State as well as the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity besides Entry 9 of List I. In the words of this Court para 23 pg.
On February 17, 2009 the premises of Ambika Electronics situate at 136, MCD Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was raided by the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi.
The Court passed the following order The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
On that day, the Court directed for listing the matter on April 9, 2010 and in the meanwhile companytinued the interim order that was passed by the High Court operative during the pendency of the writ petition.
The enforcement authorities took into custody the passport of second petitioner hereinafter referred to as detenue as well.
Sd Rasheda Hussain Joint Secretary to the Government of India The above detention order came to be passed in the backdrop of the following events.
In the year 1962, a new Customs Act replaced the antiquated Sea Customs Act, 1878.
In the writ petition, numberice was issued and it was detagged from special leave petition Crl.
Parliament then came forward with the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 COFEPOSA .
While dealing with the effect of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for short, FEMA and the repeal of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for short, FERA , the Division Bench relied upon a decision of this Court in Union of India Anr.
Heavy industry was the crying need.
In view of the order passed above, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application for extension of interim order granted by this Court on 1.4.2010.
A firm industrial base had to be laid.
62 of the Report highlighting the importance of regulation and companytrol of foreign exchange Till the wind of liberalisation started blowing across the Indian economic landscape over the last year or two, the Indian economy was a sheltered one.
The first petitioner Dropti Devi is the mother of second petitioner Raj Kumar Aggarwal.
Hence, the detention order which has been quoted above.
vs. Venkateshan S. and another1 and observed that if the activity of any person was prejudicial to the companyservation or augmentation of foreign exchange, the authorities were empowered to make a detention order against such person.
All this required foreign exchange.
The permission, as prayed for, is granted and application is disposed of accordingly.
The detenue was summoned on various occasions but he did number appear before the authorities on the ground of his illness.
On July 13, 2010, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
number 2698 of 2010.
The order of detention in question has number been executed so far in view of the companytumacious companyduct of the second petitioner.
The provisions of SAFEMA were numbered in paragraphs 15 to 19.
On the joint request of the learned companynsel of the parties, the matter is adjourned to 13th July, 2010.
Foreign exchange had to be companyserved, which meant prohibition of import of several unessential items and close regulation of other imports.
Presumably, the detention order was number challenged because special leave petition was already pending.
On May 13, 2010, the special leave petition and the present writ petition were listed before the Court.
The Division Bench companypleted the hearing on February 4, 2010 and reserved the judgment in the matter.
In the writ petition also an interim order has been in operation.The detenue was also taken away by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement to their office at Jamnagar House, Akbar Road, New Delhi in the intervening night of February 17, 2009 and February 18, 2009.
While dismissing the special leave petition as withdrawn, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy as may be available in law in challenging the order of detention and the grounds on which detention order has been passed after its execution emphasis supplied .
The Court made the following weighty prefatory remarks in paragraph 1 pg.
The evidence gathered in the companyrse of searches and the follow up action revealed that the detenue was indulging in hawala activities, the last of such activity being on April 24, 2009.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on December 14, 2009 by an interim order directed that the detenue Raj Kumar Aggarwal shall number be arrested till the next date of hearing, i.e. December 22, 2009.
8.9 lacs approximately was recovered along with some documents.
673/02/2009 Cus.
The companyrt on that day also issued a direction to the detenue to remain present in the matter during the companyrse of hearing.
He is alleged to have absconded initially.
The petitioners then filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court.
On that day itself, i.e. February 17, 2009 Office of the Directorate of Enforcement also raided the residential premises of detenues brother Anil Kumar Aggarwal at Pitam Pura, New Delhi and another companymercial premises of Ambika Electronics at Beadanpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and M s. Bhagwati Electronics, 135 Municipal Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi belonging to one Kapil Jindal were also raided.
The first petitioner then filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court being W.P. Crl.
The said order reads as follows No.
On May 11, 2010 the Court ordered the writ petition to be heard along with special leave petition Crl.
1787 of 2009 challenging the detention order dated September 23, 2009.
Later on, the special leave petition was withdrawn by the petitioners.
That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on March 18, 2010 on the ground that the petition was filed at pre execution stage.
The detenue was interrogated and his statement was recorded.
The petitioners filed special leave petition Crl.
It may be numbered here that while the above special leave petition was pending, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition.
73 of the Report COFEPOSA is clearly relatable to Entry 3 of List III inasmuch as it provides for preventive detention for reasons companynected with the security of the State as well as the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity besides Entry 9 of List I. In Amratlal Prajivandas14 companystitutionality of COFEPOSA was directly in issue.
The menace of smuggling and foreign exchange violations, however, companytinued to rise unabated.
Then on December 14, 2009 Delhi High Court, by an interim order directed that the detenue shall number be arrested till the next date of hearing, i.e. December 22, 2009.
Initially a writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the detention order but that was withdrawn.
On December 22, 2009 the Division Bench allowed the application for impleadment of Raj Kumar Aggarwal as petitioner number 2, issued rule and made interim order dated December 14, 2009 absolute during the pendency of writ petition, subject to his joining the investigation as and when called.
VIII Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Economic Intelligence Bureau COFEPOSA Unit 6th Floor, B Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi 110001 Dated 23rd September, 2009 ORDER Whereas, I Smt.
The sterling balances built up during World War II were fast dissipating.
In respect of second petitioner an order of detention has been passed on September 23, 2009 by Smt.
Rasheda Hussain, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA as amended .
The said interim order was companytinued until the disposal of writ petition by the High Court and thereafter that interim order was companytinued by this Court in the special leave petition.
It provided for preventive detention of these antisocial elements.
Interim orders shall companytinue subject to the direction given above.
During the pendency of special leave petition, the petitioners filed the present writ petition wherein the only prayer made is that impugned part of Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA be declared unconstitutional.
Rasheda Hussain, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended , am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal Munna, R o SU 184, G.F. Near Park Citi Hostel Pitampura, New Delhi that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the companyservation and augmentation of foreign exchange in future, it is necessary to make the following order Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended , I direct that the said Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal Munna , be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.
The power of Parliament to enact a law of preventive detention for reasons companynected with a defence, b foreign affairs, c security of India d security of State, e maintenance of public order or f the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity, is clearly traceable to Article 22, Article 246 and Schedule Seven, List I Entry 9 and List III Entry 3.
At the time of Independence, India did number have an industrial base worth the name.
The High Court may companysider the request of the petitioners detenue for expeditious disposal of the writ petition to be filed.
2698 of 2010 before this Court challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
2698 of 2010.
Not satisfied with the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed on March 18, 2010, the petitioners filed a special leave petition before this Court and it was mentioned on April 1, 2010.
On March 18, 2010, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.
The petitioners are at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available in law challenging the order of detention and the grounds on which detention order has been passed after its execution.
On February 19, 2009 the detenue retracted from the statement recorded in the previous night.
In which event, the matter shall be companysidered on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order as well as dismissal of this petition.
2 i.e. Mr. Raj Kumar Aggarwal to join the investigation as and when called.
It is necessary to state few material facts which have given rise to this petition.
M. Lodha, J. The central issue in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution companycerns companystitutional validity of Section 3 1 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short, COFEPOSA to the extent it empowers the companypetent authority to make an order of detention against any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the companyservation or augmentation of foreign exchange.
On that day in the special leave petition following interim order was passed By order dated December 22, 2009, the High Court directed the Petitioner No.
