A detention order under COFEPOSA Act must clearly specify which activities are intended for prevention. Ambiguous disjunctive language creates grounds for quashing the order due to non-application of mind.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. Detenu-Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar, detained by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under the provisions of CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA Act”) on 03/10/2023, has approached this Court through the Petitioner, his brother, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

2. Rule was issued on 10/11/2023 and by consent of the parties, we have taken the Petition for final hearing.

We have heard Ms. Ansari for the Petitioner and Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

3. The Detaining Authority, being the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act, directed detention of the detenu, since he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain him, with a view to prevent him from smuggling of goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in future.

Pursuant to the order of detention being passed, the detenu was communicated the grounds for detention, which comprised of the report forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority i.e. the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit. By referring to the material, the Detaining Authority arrived at the conclusion that the detenu is habitual offender and the material put forth by DRI, including seizure made and the confessional and corroborative statement, brought about sufficient material about his role as a key player in and being an organiser of smuggling of Areca nuts from Dubai in India. In a systematic manner, he was co-ordinating and arranging in conjunction with an overseas entity.

The Detaining Authority, from the material placed before him, took note of the manner in which the detenu meticulously planned the entire modus operandi of smuggling areca nuts by mis-declaring the same as other goods such as ‘quick lime lumps’ or ‘gypsum powder’ and the smuggled areca nuts would get replaced by the declared goods, while in transit from the port to the CFS area and it was diverted into the domestic market.

4. The grounds of detention communicated to the detenu clearly set out as under:

“2. In view of the facts, circumstances, findings, corroborative evidences and your role in the whole operation, I am satisfied that Shri Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar i.e. you are an important member of a well-organized smuggling syndicate involved in smuggling of huge quantity of Areca Nuts by way of mis-declaration of imported goods and fraudulently procuring IECs in the name of third persons. Your past record shows that your are a habitual offender and involved in such prejudicial activities in a repeated manner. The underlying common threat is your propensity to smuggle goods for making illicit profit and putting the national economy into danger which needs to be curbed and you need to be prevented from indulging in such activities further.

3. I am satisfied that Shri Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar i.e. you have indulged in activities amounting to smuggling in terms of Section 2(39) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 read with Section 2(e) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and your acts of deliberate commissions and omissions have rendered the goods involved liable to confiscation under the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962.

4. I am satisfied that, as evidenced above and as discussed in the foregoing paras that Shri Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar i.e. you have shown a general habit and propensity to indulge in smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smug