June, 94 was disposed of on 6.5.95 and thus there has been companysiderable delay in disposing of the Representation and such delay in disposal vitiates the order of detention.
The appellant was apprehended at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while he was leaving for Kualalumpur Singapore and on search, US dollars amounting to 1.39 lakhs in Indian currency were recovered.
Further his brother who was also going with him, from his person, foreign currency equivalent to 5.34 lakhs of rupees was recovered.
Thirdly, it was urged that the Representation that was addressed to the Central Government on 20th.
Though the Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court after the expiry of the period of limitation but the Court companydoned the delay and granted leave, and thus, the present Appeal.
The detaining authority being of the opinion that the detention of the appellant is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the companyservation of foreign exchange, issued the order of detention on 25.3.94 and was served on the detenu on the same day.
By way of an additional application the detenu also urged additional grounds and the High Court ultimately by the impugned judgment dated 15.2.1995 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act his case was forwarded to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board on companysideration of the materials placed before it, gave its opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu.
It was companytended that the grounds of detention having been served on the appellant on 30.3.94 though the order of detention was served on 25.3.94, there has been an infraction of Sub section 3 of Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the detention got vitiated.
The appellant was released on 24.3.95 after expiry of the period of one year of detention.
But the grounds of detention was served on the appellant on 30th March, 1994.
The appropriate government thereafter companyfirmed the detention and after expiry of period of one year the detenu has been released but the detenu appellant filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order of detention.
From the impugned judgment of the High Court it transpires that the appellant raised three companytentions all of which were answered against the appellant.
Secondly, it was urged that though the representation was made to the Advisory Board and it had number been indicated that the Central Government should also companysider the same, yet the Central Government was duty bound to companysider the said Representation of the appellant addressed to the Advisory Board and such number consideration infringes the right of the appellant under Article 22 5 of the Constitution and the order of detention is vitiated on that score.
The order of detention was passed on 25.3.1994 and the period of detention was for a period of one year which is long over but the detenu pursues his right of challenging the order of detention as a proceeding under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act SAFEMA has been initiated by the Appropriate Authority.
B. Pattanaik, J. The appellant challenges the legality of his order of detention passed under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short COFEPOSA as well as the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissing the appellants Writ Petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
