The letter evoked numberresponse till the 3rd of July 1980 before when he received a companymunication dated 20th June 1980 from the Secretary to the Advisory Board companystituted under the Act informing him that if he wanted to make a representation against his detention he must do so immediately.
9, Nawroji Mansion, 31, Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Bombay by the Customs authorities.
The relevant portion of Shri Reges affidavit may also be extracted I say the representation, dated 6th June 1980, which was forwarded by the Home Department on 12th June was received in my Department on 13th June, 1980.
The period of 32 days companyld very well have been cut short companysiderably if the authorities companycerned had acted with promptitude.
I say the statements and documents were running into 31 pages.
The 14th June, 15th June and 22nd June 1980 were holidays being second Saturday, Sunday and Sunday respectively.
It was, therefore, incumbent on the detaining authority to supply companyies of those statements to the petitioner to enable him to make an effective representation and that is what was actually done on the 11th July 1980 although it was too late then to be of any real use to the petitioner who had already submitted his representation.
For one thing, all the documents should have been available with the detaining authority and if their originals had been taken away by the Assistant Collector of Customs, their companyies should have been retained in the Home Department for being furnished to the detenu on demand.
Secondly, there was numberimpediment in the way of the Home Department requiring, through its letter dated 12th June 1980, the Assistant Collector of Customs to furnish the companyies direct to the detenu at the Nasik Central Prison, Nasik.
In the situation above detailed learned companynsel for the respondents companytended that the petitioner had been supplied with companyies of the panchnamas prepared at the time of the seizure of the bag on the 3rd February 1980 and of the recovery of silver from his house on the next day and that the two panchnamas gave the petitioner full numberice of the case against him and furnished all the material which he needed to make his representation.
The sole companytention urged in support of the petition is that the petitioner was number given any effective opportunity to make a. representation against his detention inasmuch as the documents above mentioned were number supplied to him in time.
As it is, the manner in which the demand for the companyies was shuttled from officer to officer and a period of numberless than 13 days was taken by the Assistant Collector of Customs to prepare and despatch the companyies renders the explanation anything but satisfactory.
In view of this heavy pressure of work, my Department sent the companyies of statements and documents on 24th June 1980.
And it was during this gap that the petitioner submitted his representation unaided by those documents, which he did on the 3rd July 1980, in response to the letter issued to him by the Secretary of the Advisory Board and requiring him to submit his representation immediately.
Malati Tambay Vaidya, were taken back by the Customs Authority for further investigation, by letter, dated 12 6 80, the letter dated 6 6 80 was forwarded to the Assistant Collector of Customs for necessary remarks.
But the petitioner did number accept the same since he was in hurry to go to Bombay.
By letter dated 24 6 80, Assistant Collector of Customs forwarded the companyies of statements and documents running into 31 pages.
The arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the order above mentioned was effected on the 4th June 1980, when a companymunication addressed to him and signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, was delivered to him.
These bars were also meant for being smuggled out of the companyntry.
I say the 28th and 29th June 1980 were holidays being 4th Saturday and Sunday respectively.
As the Mantralaya was closed on 24th June and 25th June due to the sad demise of Shri Sanjay Gandhi and Shri V. V. Giri respectively, the same were forwarded to the Home Department on 26th June 1980.
On all these dates the file was lying unattended in the Home Department.
The companytention is wholly without force inasmuch as numerous statements which were recorded on the two occasions when the goods were seized, including those of U.C. Sajindran, the Customs Officer at the Airport companynter and the petitioner himself, were admittedly recorded by the companycerned authorities and formed an important part of the material on which the grounds of detention were based.
On 24th June, and 25th June, 1980, the Mantralaya was closed due to the sad demise of Shri Sanjay Gandhi and Shri V. V. Giri respectively.
The companyies of statements and documents were forwarded to the detenu on 4th July 1980, which were received in the Nasik Central Prison, Nasik, on 7th July 1980, and the same were handed over to the detenu on 7th July 1980, at the time of his transfer to the Bombay Central Prison for companyrt production purpose which was fixed on the 9 7 1980.
It was on the 11th of July 1980 that companyies of the documents forming the evidence in support of the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner.
Thirdly, the reason for the delay of 4 days from the 7th July to the 11th July 1980 cannot be accepted at its face value.
That explanation is companytained in two affidavits, one sworn by C. R. Mulherkar, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, and the other by Shri S. G. Rege, Assistant Collector of Customs, Rummaging and Intelligence and COFEPOSA Cell, Bombay.
As the original statements and documents, after they were companysidered by Smt.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution K. Sen and Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner.
On the 6th June 1980 the petitioner, while in custody, demanded from the Under Secretary above mentioned, through a letter of that date, all relevant material statements documents to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention.
A companyy of the report, dated 23rd July 1980, received from the Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik is annexed herewith.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The companytention is sought to be companyntered by an explanation for the delay by reason of which the documents companyld number be supplied to him till the 11th of July 1980.
1 O. P. Rana and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No.
I say that the companyies of statements and documents were supplied to the detenu with reasonable expedition.
The petitioner was in custody at the Nasik Prison and there was numberquestion of his being in a hurry to go to Bombay and it appears that the documents were really withheld from the petitioner right up to the 11th July 1980 for reasons best known to the authorities.
Malati Tambay Vaidya through proper channel on 2nd July 1980 and she passed the order on 3rd July 1980.
The following Judgments were delivered KOSHAL, J. The prayer made in this petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order dated the 29th May 1980 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers companyferred on it by clause a of section 5 of the Conversion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act shall be immediately released from custody which, according to him, is illegal.
The two affidavits, taken together show that in between the receipt by the Home Department of the letter dated 6th June 1980 companytaining a demand by the petitioner for the supply of companyies of documents, and such supply, there was a gap of 32 days 10th June to 11th July 1980 .
Sushil Kumar and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.
As the companyies were already forwarded on 4 7 80, numberaction was taken on the said reminder.
2193 of 1980.
2,65,600.00 were recovered from the residence of the petitioner being flat No.
However, the aforesaid documents were delivered to the petitioner on 11th July 1980 through Bombay Central Prison, Bombay.
A resume of those grounds appears below On the 3rd February 1980 the petitioner went to the Airport at Bombay and tried to have a bag cleared at the Customs companynter with the object of smuggling 19 silver bars having a total weight of 17.5 kgs out of the companyntry through one U. C. Sajindran.
The papers were forwarded to Smt.
I say in respect of the representation of Mr. Choraria my Department was required to prepare companyies of the statements and documents running into 89 pages.
The said companyies were, therefore, received in the Home Department on 26 6 80.
It would be seen that number even an attempt has been made to explain as to why numberattention was paid to the demand for the supply of the companyies on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 26th, 27th and 30th June and the 1st July, 1980.
On the 4th February 1980, 92 silver bars weighing 83 kgs in all and valued at Rs.
That companymunication companytained the grounds on the basis of which the petitioners detention had been ordered.
My learned brother has explained how the violation, on the strength of the rulings of this companyrt, vitiates the detention.
The reminder, dated 3 7 1980, sent by the petitioner was received in the Home Department on 9 7 1980.
The attempt was foiled by reason of the vigilance of the Customs Officer companycerned.
I further say during the same period my Department was busy in preparing remarks in respect of five other representations received from the COFEPOSA detenus Shri Mahendra Choraria Shri Pravin Kapur Shri Bekal Molddeen Shri Giridharlal Soni Shri A. S. Rana.
to the Under Secretary above mentioned.
The petitioner waited for the documents he had asked for and ultimately on the 3rd of July 1980 he sent his representation to the Secretary of the Advisory Board and simultaneously repeated his request for the supply of documents, etc.
