Important Point
Detaining Authorities must apply their minds carefully and exercise great caution in passing such an order upon being fully satisfied from materials which are both for and against the detenu that such an order is required to be passed in the interest of the State and for the public good.

Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.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.

3.The facts which are said to have led to the passing of the detention Order are briefly summarized hereunder.

4.Shri Sanjay Bhandari obtained Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (E.P.C.G.) licences as Service Provider in respect of four firms/companies which were floated by him from time to time and imported vehicles at concessional rates for personal use in flagrant misuse of the said licences. The said vehicles were never used for tourist purposes as declared for obtaining the E.P.C.G. licences and the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate shown by him did not relate to his earnings from the use of the imported cars. In addition to the above, all the vehicles which were imported under the aforesaid licences were registered as private vehicles.

5.Shri Sanjay Bhandari was found to have violated various provisions/conditions of the Exim Policy, Foreign Trade Policy and Customs exemptions notifications and during the investigations conducted 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 Bhandari’s 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. Considering the nature and gravity of Shri Bhandari’s 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.

6.Aggrieved by the Order of detention, the detenu’s wife, Ranu Bhandari, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the same mainly on the ground of non-supply of various documents, which according to the respondent, prevented the detenu from making an effective representation to the detention Order. Being satisfied that certain relevant documents which had been considered by the Detaining Authority while issuing the detention Order had not been supplied to the detenu to make an effective representative against his continued detention, the High Court allowed his Writ Petition and quashed the detention Order dated 15th December, 2005, which has been challenged in the appeal.

7.The Union of India is in appeal against the Judgment and Order of the High Court.

8.Learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. A. Sharan, questioned the decision of the High Court on the ground that all the documents which had been considered by the Detaining Authority and found to be relevant in issuing the detention Order, had been indicated in the detention Order and supplied to the detenu. Furthermore, it was pointed out by the learned Solicitor General that the documents which were not supplied originated from the detenu himself.

9.The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the question as to what documents were required to be supplied to a detenu along with the detention Order has fallen for consideration of this Court in innumerable cases. The consistent view which has been taken by this Court is that documents which had been relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a decision that it was necessary to issue the Order of detention, would have to be supplied to the detenu to enable him to understand the grounds on which the detention Order had been passed and to make an effective representation in respect thereof, in keepin