Several grounds touching legality of grounds on which the order of detention was passed were raised in the writ petition.
Before the order of detention companyld be served on Shri Ratan Bagaria, his wife Smt.
The present appellants filed a companynter affidavit.
Vidya Bagaria, the respondent herein, filed Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution praying for issuance of writ or any other order quashing the order of detention passed by appellant number2 herein who was the respondent number2 in the writ petition.
Thereafter, the respondent went in appeal before the Division Bench and again obtained ad interim relief on 10.1.1997 which was extended from time to time.
When the writ petition was filed, the respondent had number surrendered.
The various stands regarding the legality of the grounds of detention as have been raised by the writ petitioner were also refuted and it was submitted that grounds stated were germane and relevant for directing detention.
Primarily an objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the writ application before the order of detention was actually served and the detenu taken into custody.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The Union of India, Joint Secretary COFEPOSA, Commission of Customs II, Madras and State of Tamil Nadu question the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing order of detention dated 19.12.95 passed in respect of one Ratan Bagaria under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act .
