IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and in accordance with procedural requirements; unreasonable delays in execution can invalidate such orders.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed challenging the detention order dated 17 th May 1993 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in the exercise of powers conferred under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (' COFEPOSA Act' ) for detaining the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24 th May 2023, passed by respondent no.2-The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act for confirming the detention order dtd. 17/5/1993 and directing detention of the petitioner for one year from the date of his detention, i.e. 28/2/2023.

2. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon the search and seizure proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Foreign Exchange Act 1973 ('FERA') and the statements recorded under Sec. 40 of FERA after one Umar Ibrahim Mohamad alias Mohd. Sharif Hasan was apprehended at Mumbai airport on 20/11/1992, when he was leaving for Dubai with substantial amount of foreign currencies concealed by him. By referring to the said proceedings, the detaining authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there was reason to believe that the petitioner was engaged in unauthorised acquisition of foreign exchange and transferring the same surreptitiously out of India in violation of the provisions of FERA. The detaining authority has further recorded a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner has carried out unauthorised transactions and has adversely affected the foreign exchange resources of the country. The detaining authority has further recorded that though prosecution under the provisions of FERA is likely to be initiated against the petitioner, the detaining authority was satisfied that unless detained, the petitioner was likely to continue to engage in the activities in future prejudicial to the augmentation of the country's foreign exchange resources.

3. The aforesaid detention order dtd. 17/5/1993 is served upon the petitioner on 28/2/2023. Pursuant to the opinion of the Central Advisory Board as per the hearings conducted on 2/5/2023 and 3/5/2023, respondent no. 2, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act, confirmed the detention order dtd. 17/5/1993 and directed the detention of the petitioner for one year from the date of his detention, i.e. 28/2/2023. A perusal of the said order dtd. 24/5/2023 indicates that the petitioner's case was placed before the Central Advisory Board, High Court of Delhi, who was of the opinion that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority does not call for any interference.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds to challenge the detention order. However, all the grounds are not required to be examined in as much as the petition ought to be allowed on the ground raised in clause (I) of paragraph 19 of the petition, which reads as under:

"(I) The law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed, both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. The detention order dtd. 17/5/1993 has become invalid by the passage of time as it was not followed substantively and procedurally. The board on hearing the Petitioner should not have advised for continuing the detention for a year".

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no efforts were made by the detaining authority to serve the detention order by following the procedure prescribed under the COFEPOSA Act. He submitted that the record would show that the petitioner was never absconding, and the case of the detaining authority that as the petitioner was absconding, the detention order of the year 1993 could not be served upon the petitioner is baseless. The learned counsel submitted th