IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Tushar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2915 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2017
The Court held that the petitioner's third petition challenging the detention order was not maintainable. The Court found that the petitioner had already challenged the detention order in two previous petitions, and that the grounds raised in the third petition were not new or fresh. The Court also found that the petitioner had been evading service of the detention order, and that this was the reason for the delay in its execution. The Court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of his own wrong by arguing that the delay in execution of the detention order rendered it invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a COFEPOSA detenu, challenged a detention order dated 11th February, 2011 passed against him by the Secretary (Appeals & Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner had filed two previous petitions challenging the detention order, but both petitions were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a third petition, arguing that the delay in execution of the detention order rendered it invalid. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had been evading service of the detention order and that the delay in execution was not attributable to the State.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had already challenged the detention order in two previous petitions, and that the grounds raised in the third petition were not new or fresh. The Court also found that the petitioner had been evading service of the detention order, and that this was the reason for the delay in its execution. The Court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of his own wrong by arguing that the delay in execution of the detention order rendered it invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's third petition challenging the detention order was maintainable. 2. Whether the delay in execution of the detention order rendered it invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's third petition challenging the detention order was not maintainable. The Court found that the petitioner had already challenged the detention order in two previous petitions, and that the grounds raised in the third petition were not new or fresh. The Court also found that the petitioner had been evading service of the detention order, and that this was the reason for the delay in its execution. The Court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of his own wrong by arguing that the delay in execution of the detention order rendered it invalid.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges a detention order dated 11th February, 2011 issued by the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, “COFEPOSA”).
2. The other relief sought is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction calling for the records relating to the order dated 13th June, 2017 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) and the Detaining Authority refusing to revoke the detention order.
3. Few facts would have to be noted so as to consider the twofold objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition.
4. The petitioner before us is an Indian citizen and residing at the address mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner has set out at page 4 of the Petition, the events and developments leading to the issuance of the detention order.
5. It would be better if we refer to the detention order itself. A copy of the order of detention dated 11th February, 2011 has not been annexed to the memo of the present Petition, but we have called for the record of the two Petitions prior to this Petition filed by this very petitioner. The order of detention states that the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the petitioner residing at the above address should be detained with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, the order directs that the petitioner be detained. That order reads as under:
DETENTION ORDER
No. PSA1211/CR2/SPL3( A)Whereas I, Nandkumar Jantre, Secretary (Appeals & Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) vide Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. MIS2011/CR1/SPL3(A), dated the 12th January 2011, am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Tushar Kishor Trivedi (Age 50 years) residing at Shiv Kesar, 5th floor, Flat No. 504, Opp. BMC Market, Baptista Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056, that with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods, it is necessary to make the following order.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), I hereby direct that the said Shri Tushar Kishor Trivedi be detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
2. In pursuance of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974 read with Government Order, Home Department No. SB.III/ISA3974(V), dated the 18th December 1974, I hereby further direct that said Shri Tushar Kishor Trivedi shall be detained in the Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, and shall be subject to the conditions laid down in the said Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974.
6. The material before the detaining authority and the grounds of detention were also made available to the petitioner. They recite that on 11th June, 2010, the Courier Cell at the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai found some irregularity in an import package which had arrived from Hong Kong by Jet Airways flight, details of which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention. The goods in respect of which the bill of entry was filed were grossly misdeclared as mobile accessories. It was found to contain 34,000 pieces of mobile memory cards. The name and address of the consignee was shown as J.J. Enterprises at Vile Parle (W), Mumbai and the address of the sendera party in Hong Kong. The Air Intelligence Unit was intimated immediately about such irregularity. On detailed examination of the said package in the presence of independent witnesses a
Baby Devassy Chully @ Bobby vs. Union of India and Others
Chandi Prasad and Ors. vs. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.
Daryao & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra
Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri vs. Union of India & Ors.
Dropti Devi & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Election Commission of India vs. St. Mary’s School and Others
Ghulam Sarvar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs. Union of India & Ors.
Lallubhi Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India & Ors.
Sayed Taher Bawamiya vs. Government of India
Srikant vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and Others
Subhash Popatlal Dave v/s Union of India & Anr.
Subhash Popatlal Dave vs Union of India and Another
T.P. Moideen Koya vs. Govt. of Kerala and Others
V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.