Aggrieved by the order of detention, the detenus wife, Ranu Bhandari, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the same mainly on the ground of number supply of various documents, which according to the respondent, prevented the detenu from making an effective representation to the detention order.
The facts which are said to have led to the passing of the detention order are briefly summarized hereunder.
Relying on the aforesaid view, this Court had held that although the companyy of the passport of the detenu had number been supplied to him, though reference had been made to the same in the detention order, what had weighed with the Detaining Authority in issuing the detention order was a statement made by the detenu in his own hand writing admitting that he had made several visits outside the companyntry.
Further reference was made to the decision of this Court in Sunila Jain vs Union of India 2006 3 SCC 321, wherein also several decisions of this Court were companysidered, including that of Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran supra , and it was held that number placement of a companyy of the bail application of the detenu before the Detaining Authority was number sufficient to vitiate the order of detention, since the same was within the knowledge of the Detaining Authority and had been taken into companysideration while passing the detention order.
Being satisfied that certain relevant documents which had been companysidered by the Detaining Authority while issuing the detention order had number been supplied to the detenu to make an effective representative against his companytinued detention, the High Court allowed his Writ Petition and quashed the detention order dated 15th December, 2005, which has been challenged in the appeal.
Furthermore, it was pointed out by the learned Solicitor General that the documents which were number supplied originated from the detenu himself.
The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court.
In addition to the above, all the vehicles which were imported under the aforesaid licences were registered as private vehicles.
Considering the nature and gravity of Shri Bhandaris activities over a period of time and his high potentiality and propensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future, the order of detention was issued against him on 15th December, 2005, under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
By depriving the detenu of the said documents he was deprived of the right guaranteed to him under Article 22 5 of the Constitution which was mandatory and any breach thereof had been held by this Court to be sufficient to vitiate the detention order.
On the facts of the said case, being of the view that number supply of the passport of the detenu had number prejudicially affected his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention, it was held that the number supply of the companyy of the passport would number vitiate the detention order.
Shri Sanjay Bhandari obtained Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme E.P.C.G. licences as Service Provider in respect of four firms companypanies which were floated by him from time to time and imported vehicles at companycessional rates for personal use in flagrant misuse of the said licences.
The reference to the passport entries had been made only by way of reference and was number the basis of the detention order.
Shri Sanjay Bhandari was found to have violated various provisions companyditions of the Exim Policy, Foreign Trade Policy and Customs exemptions numberifications and during the investigations companyducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 51 out of 61 vehicles were seized, though most of them were released provisionally on payment of differential duty and execution of Bonds and Bank Guarantees.
Shri Bhandaris said activities were held to amount to smuggling as defined in Section 2 39 of the Customs Act as adopted in Section 2 e of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
On 15th December, 2005, the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA , Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, issued an order of detention against Shri Sanjay Bhandari, the husband of the respondent writ petitioner, under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA , to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods in future.
The said vehicles were never used for tourist purposes as declared for obtaining the P.C.G. licences and the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate shown by him did number relate to his earnings from the use of the imported cars.
