It has also been pointed out that the sponsoring authority submitted its report before the Detaining Authority to revoke the detention order which was passed against the appellant.
PSA 1204/21 SLP 3 A dated 31.1.2005 was also issued to detain Shri Kamlesh Shah, the brother of the petitioner.
Accordingly, at the stage of the admission hearing, the Settlement Commission was urged to make recommendation to the Detaining Authority for the revocation of the Detention Order.
Pursuant to the said show cause numberice, the application for settlement under Section 127 B of the Customs Act, 1962, was filed on 19.4.2005 by M s Perfect Trading Co. as Applicant and the petitioner, his brother and others as Co Applicants before the settlement Commission, Mumbai.
PSA 1204/21 2 SLP 3 A dated 12.1.2005 was issued by respondent No.2 for detaining the petitioner ostensibly under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act 1974.
The petitioner by way of this writ petition is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention passed by respondent No.2 at pre execution stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
The government has accordingly revoked the detention order issued against him.
Being aggrieved by the said order of detention which is based upon the same grounds as reflected in the show cause numberice and which were companysidered in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, the petitioner preferred the above writ petition for quashing of the impugned detention order.
In spite of companyplete settlement of all disputes among the petitioner and the Revenue, after the case was fully settled by the said Final Order dated 7.3.2006 of companypromise settlement of the entire case, the officers of DRI apprehended the Petitioners brother and he was detained under the Detention Order dated 31.1.2005.
It is stated that two similar orders of detention dated 12.01.2005 and 31.01.2005 were issued under the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No.2 against the petitioner Alpesh Navinchandra Shah and his brother Kamlesh Shah respectively.
ORDER Whereas, an order No.
One companyy of revocation order should be served on the detenue companycerned and the duplicate companyy of the same alongwith signature of the detenue with date should be returned immediately to the undersigned.
The grounds of detention order and the documents relied upon in the case of the petitioner are identical in companytent and material.
Impugned Detention Order bearing No.
That petition was rejected by the High Court by holding that it is number a fit case where any interference is called for before the execution of the order of detention.
Another decision cited by learned companynsel for the petitioner in V.C.Mohan vs. Union of India reported in 2002 SCC 451 and the observations made thereunder can also be usefully applied to the facts of this case.
The petitioner is also relying upon the companyy of order dated 5th May 2005 published in Gazette of Maharashtra Government at page 56, Page IV A, inter alia, showing that the Order No.
In the case of Pawan Bhartiya vs. Union of India and Another, 2003 11 SCC 479, the appellant challenged the detention order dated 30.07.1996 passed under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 before the High Court of Delhi.
It is thus seen that the Settlement Commission has, in its order, under the head penalty and prosecution granted immunity from penalty and prosecution to the companyapplicant and in these circumstances the Advisory Board was of the opinion that there was numbersufficient cause for the companytinued detention.
PSA 1204/21 1 SPL 3 A , dated the 31st January 2005, has been passed by the Principal Secretary Appeals and Security to the Government of Maharashtra, home Department and Detaining Authority under section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 52 of 1974 for the detention of Shri Kamlesh Navinchandra Shah, Whereas, the case of Shri Kamlesh Navinchandra Shah was placed before the Advisory Board, which is of the opinion that there is numbersufficient cause for his detention and Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has fully companysidered the report of the Advisory Board and material on record Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 8 f of the aforesaid Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby revokes the aforesaid Detention Order and further directs that said Shri Kamlesh Navinchandra Shah be released forthwith on receipt of this order.
He further stated that he challenged the order of his detention at pre execution stage in the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given Interim stay of the operation of impugned order.
The revocation order in triplicate is enclosed herewith.
The detention order has already been served upon Kamlesh Shah.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide Order dated 23.9.2004 directed to release the petitioner and his brother on bail imposing companyditions including their regular attendance in the Department and the imposition of an embargo number to leave the companyntry without the prior permission of the Court.
A companyy of the order has been forwarded by the Commission to the Detaining Authority and yet the detention order was executed on his brother i.e. detenue Kamlesh Shah.
Show Cause Notice dated 23.2.2005 was issued to the petitioner and his brother by the DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit.
Despite this fact the detention order passed against the appellant was number revoked even though he has also paid the customs duty as demanded.
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has filed an affidavit in this case wherein it is submitted that similar 5 detention orders were revoked.
During the companyrse of the admission hearing of the aforesaid settlement application, the petitioner came to know that the Order dated 27.12.2005 has been passed by respondent No.2 for detaining him while invoking section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
J U D G M E N T Dr. AR.
On 3.9.2004, companysignments of mis declared companysignments were intercepted by the DRI officials.
The brief facts of the case are mentioned in seriatim as under In or about, August, 2004 M s. Perfect Trading Co. proprietorship firm of Shri Rajendra Mamgaim imported Ball bearings in five companytainers.
Similar Order No.
PSA 1204/21 2 SLP 3 A was issued against the petitioner on 12th January, 2005 by the respondent.
At the time of hearing, learned companynsel for the appellant pointed out that similar detention orders were passed against 6 persons during the period from 07.12.1995 to 12.08.1996 and further pointed out that 5 out of 6 detention orders were revoked by the companypetent authority on the ground that the customs duty which was required to be paid was paid by them before the execution of the detention orders.
Lakshmanan, J. The above writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 12.01.2005 under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 issued against the petitioner by respondent No.2 Principal Secretary Appeals and Security , Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
The petitioner and his brother were arrested on 4.9.2004 by the Intelligence Officers, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit primarily on the allegations that they have been indulging in import of high quality and high value Ball Bearing and were clearing the same by evading duty of custom.
Third companyy should be retained for your record.
The petitioner was detained under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act in pursuance of the impugned order of detention.
The Addl.
