On March 18, 1980 the Assistant Director, Revenue Intelligence wrote a letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs companyveying the decision of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to supply the detenu with companyies of the documents on which the order of detention was based, and the documents were forwarded for onward transmission to the Home Department for doing the needful.
The case was, therefore, put up to the Secretary on 25th March, 1980 by the Deputy Secretary.
It is a measure to prevent smuggling of goods into or out of India and to check diversion of foreign exchange by immobilising the persons engaged in smuggling, foreign exchange racketeering and related activities by preventive detention of such persons.
for doing the needful.
In support of the petition, two points are raised challenging the validity of the companytinued detention of the detenu both on procedural grounds, namely 1 there was undue delay in furnishing the documents, statements and writings referred to and relied upon in the order of detention to enable the detenu to prepare or cause to be prepared his representation against the said order of detention and 2 there was a failure on the part of the Central Government within a reasonable time to companysider and deal with his application for revocation of the detention order under sub s. 1 of s.11 of the Act.
On March 13, 1980, the Under Secretary to the Home Department forwarded the letter to the Collector of Customs Preventive , Bombay for his companyments.
When the matter came up for hearing before one of us, Venkatramiah J., as the Vacation Judge, on June 17, 1980, the State Government was directed to file an affidavit explaining the time spent between March 10, 1980 and March 27, 1980 since there was numberexplanation forthcoming in the affidavit dated June 13, 1980 sworn by C. L. Mulherkar, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Special .
The detention of individuals without trial for any length of time, however short, is wholly inconsistent with the basic ideas of our Government.
Eventually, the documents were sent to the detenus solicitors on March 27, 1980 by registered post and were received by them on April 1, 1980.
Along with the order of detention, he was served with the grounds for detention.
On 21st March, 1980, after scrutiny the case was submitted to the Secretary, Home Department Transport , Mantralaya, Bombay by the Assistant through companycerned officers.
The Courts have always viewed with disfavour the detention without trial whatever be the nature of offence.
On the same day i.e. March 19, 1980, the Assistant Collector of Customs sent a letter to the Joint Secretary, Home Department Special companyveying the decision of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to supply companyies and also forwarded a set of documents for being supplied to the detenu.
But the detenus solicitors in the meanwhile, had already submitted an incomplete representation against the order of detention on March 31, 1980.
In furtherance of that direction, B. Shetye, Desk Officer, Home Department Special has sworn an affidavit dated June 18, 1980 to the effect On 18th March 1980 a letter was addressed by the Assistant Director, D.R.I. to the Assistant Collector of Customs informing him about the decision to give companyies and the companyies of the statements, etc.
On the same day i.e. 19th March, 1980 the Assistant Collector of Customs addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Home Department Special , Mantralaya, Bombay to companymunicate the decision of the R.I. to supply companyies and also forwarded a set of relevant documents for being supplied to M s. Mahimtura and Company.
The case was put up before the Secretary to the Government, Home Department Transport on March 25, 1980.
The detenu through his solicitors letter dated March 8, 1980, addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Bombay made a request that all the documents, statements, and writings referred to and relied upon in the detention order, be furnished to him, to enable him to prepare or cause to be prepared his representation against such detention.
I say that the Home Department received the said letter and the companyies of the documents on 19th March 1980.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the petitioner.
On the basis of the request of the Home Department the Assistant Collector of Customs addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay on March 15, 1980 for his companyments.
The said letter dated 18th March, 1980 was received by the Assistant Collector of Customs on 19th March, 1980.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
The order of detention was, therefore, number challenged on the ground that the grounds furnished were number adequate or sufficient for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, or for making of an effective representation.
I say that 22nd March, 1980 and 23rd March, 1980 were holidays in Maharashtra as 22nd March, 1980 was 4th Saturday and 23rd March was Sunday.
On March 26, 1980 the Secretary directed that the detenu be furnished with the documents on which his order of detention was based.
It was received in the Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay on March 10, 1980.
This reflects a sad state of affairs in the Home Department.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. This petition for the grant of writ of Habeas Corpus is for the release of one Bhalabhai Motiram Patel, who has been detained by an order of the State Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 under sub s. 1 of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transport of smuggled goods.
N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
Violations of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling activities are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby a serious adverse effect on the security of the State.
724 of 1980.
24th March, 1980 was an optional holiday on account of Chaitra Sud 15.
According to him, the documents were taken away by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and numbercopies were made or retained by the Home Department.
The facts emerging from the grounds of detention are that the detenu was acting as a companyrier between Messrs K. Malhotra Imports Exports, Brussels having a widespread network abroad and Messrs Apex Distributors, Bombay who were engaged in a criminal companyspiracy to smuggle companytraband goods on a wide scale.
At the companyclusion of the hearing on July 30, 1980 we made an order for the release of the detenu since we were of the view that his companytinued detention was invalid.
The letter was received by the Assistant Collector of Customs on March 19, 1980.
were forwarded to the Customs for onward transmission to the Home Department of Maharashtra Govt.
He goes on to explain that it is number the practice of the Home Department to retain the documents or companyies thereof, after an order of detention is passed.
On February 12, 1980 the State Government of Maharashtra served the detenu with an order of detention issued under sub s. 1 of s.3 of the Act and directed that he shall be detained in the Central Jail, Nagpur.
