In the companynter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition it is stated at para 19 as follows With reference to paras 8 DD of the petition, I say that the representation dated 6.8.2011 made by Shri Rashid Kapadia, was received in my office on 6.8.2011 late in the evening.
By the said order it was directed that the son of the appellant named Khalil Ahmed Rashid Ahmed Kapadia hereinafter referred to as the detenu be detained under the provisions of the Act.
The Sponsoring Authority forwarded the parawise companyments on 26.8.2011 which were received in the Department on 26.8.2011 late in the evening.
According to the Customs Department, the goods were over valued in order to claim the benefit of higher export drawback.
I say that during this period 7.8.2011 was holiday.
Subsequently, the appellant filed the abovementioned writ petition on 18 10 2011 challenging the order of detention.
By the Judgment under challenge the said writ petition was dismissed.
The fact that the representation was made on 06 08 2011 and it was disposed of on 07 09 2011 by the 1st respondent is number in dispute.
There were holidays on 27.08.2011, 28.08.2011, 31.08.2011 and 01.09.2011 and on 29.08.2011 due to heavy rain fall the office work was paralysed.
Secretary.
The Under Secretary endorsed it on 2.9.2011 and forwarded it to the Dy.
Aggrieved by the said detention order, the appellant herein made a representation to the 1st respondent praying that the detention order be revoked, for various reasons mentioned in the representation.
The parawise companyments from the Sponsoring Authority were called for by letter dated 09.08.2011.
The Dy.
Elaborate submissions were made before the High Court on the first two grounds mentioned above, which did number find favour with the High Court.
The said representation came to be rejected by the 1st respondent by an order dated 07 09 2011.
The facts, which lead to the passing of the detention order, are as follows A companysignment of goods companyered by eight shipping bills, all dated 26 10 2010, being exported by a firm called M s.Noble Impex, was detained by the Customs authorities.
It is the case of the Customs Department that one Syed Naimuddin is the proprietor of the abovementioned M s. Noble Impex.
The detention order is challenged on various grounds before the High Court principally, that all the material relevant for enabling the Detaining Authority 1st respondent to record the satisfaction that it is necessary to preventively detain the detenu is number placed before the authority secondly, that the detaining authority mechanically passed the order of detention without carefully scrutinising the material placed before her and lastly, the detention is vitiated by the fact that the representation of the petitioner dated 06 08 2011 invoking Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India was rejected only on 07 09 2011 after an inordinate delay of one month.
Secretary endorsed it on 5.9.2011 and forwarded the papers to me.
Accordingly rejection reply was issued on 7.9.2011 through Speed Post to the applicant.
The 1st respondent, on a companysideration of the material placed before her, issued the detention order.
I further state that the companycerned Assistant submitted a detailed numbere and forwarded it to the Under Secretary on 30.8.2011.
The reasons for such delay have number been explained by the Sponsoring Authority, represented by the 3rd respondent herein.
Syed Naimuddin and the detenu are said to be companysins.
I had independently companysidered the representation and rejected it on 7.9.2011.
I say that during this period 4.9.2011 was holiday.
The said writ petition was filed challenging the order of detention dated 20 07 2011 passed under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 henceforth referred to as the Act , by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, the Customs authorities moved the 1st respondent for the issuance of the detention order against the abovementioned four persons.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.3253 of 2011 of the Bombay High Court, the unsuccessful petitioner therein carried the matter to this Court.
It is the further case of the Customs Department that the abovementioned companysins, with the aid and abetment of one Ashok Dhakane and Bala Jadhav, who are the partner and employee respectively of M s. Khakane Co., a firm carrying on business as a clearing house agent, attempted to make the abovementioned export.
