Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order of detention dated May 5,1993 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Govern- ment of India against the petitioner. The detention of the petitioner has been ordered under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( for short cofeposa ACT ).

( 2 ) THE facts set out in the grounds of detention are as under: On March 10,1993 the petitioner was intercepted in the security zone of the IGI Airport, New Delhi, when he was about to fly to Singapore. His baggage was recalled from the aircraft and searched. The search of the baggage resulted in seizure of the following currencies:-

"1. US 37850 2. DM 12050 3. Sing. 1450 4. Can. 2050 5. Lira 49,60,000 6. Bahrin Dinar 10; 7. Oman Riyal 10 8. Yen 1000. 9. Thai Bhatt 210. 10. Spanish Peseto 5000 11. Mal 20 12. UK Pounds 1000 and 13. US Travellers cheques 1280"pursuant to the notice under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 the petitioner, inter alia, admitted the seizure of the foreign currencies from his baggage. He also stated that he had purchased some of the seized travellers cheques as per the following details:-

"1 ) American dollar TC 240 at the rate of 32. 00 from Harish Taneja, who was working at Shyama Guest House, IIT Gate, New Delhi. 2) 200 American Dollar TC at the rate of Rs. 32. 00 from Rajiv Grewal who was working at Shyama Guest House. 3) 800 American Dollar TC at the rate of Rs. 32. 00 from a Pathan named Mama, who resides somewhere in Ballimaran. "the residential premises of the petitioner were also searched and certain documents were seized. This incident resulted in the arrest of the petitioner. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded him to custody till March 24, 1993, which was further extended from time to time.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order mainly on two grounds:

1. The representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of after a period of 36 days by the Government of India and the delay in disposing of the representation has not been properly explained; and

2. The petitioner was in custody when the order of his detention was made and there was no imminent likelihood of his release on bail. Therefore there was no justification for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner on May 19,1993 made arepresentation to the Government of India by handing over the same to the Supdt. Central Jail Tihar. This representation was received in the COFEPOSA Branch of the Ministry of Finance on May 25, 1993. On the same day, the Joint Secretary-called for the comments of the sponsoring authority and the latter forwarded the comments to the COFEPOSA Branch of the Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated June 1, 1993. Comments, however, were received by the concerned branch on June 4, 1993. Thereafter on June 8,1993 Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) transmitted the papers to the Director General (EIB ). The Director General (EIB) in turn sent the file to the Minister of State (Revenue and Expenditure) on June 14, 1993, who submitted the same to the Finance Minister on June 17,1993 for consideration and disposal of the representation. Ultimately on June 19, 1993 the Finance Minister rejected the representation of the petitioner but the file was received back in the COFEPOSA Branch on June 24, 1993. The order rejecting the representation was communicated to the petitioner on June 24, 1993 itself.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been delay in the disposal of the representation at various levels. He points out that the representation was filed through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar on May 19,1993 but reached the COFEPOSA Branch only on May 25, 1993. Learned counsel claims that the tardy movement of the representation was due to the slack

Click Here to Read the rest of this document