1992 Supreme(Raj) 640

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharama, V.K.Singhal, JJ.
Gyan Chand Jain & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondents
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1194 of 1992.
Decided On : 2-04-1992

Headnote:

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 3(1), 108 - Constitution of India - Articles 166(1), 22(5) - Detention order - Validity - Grounds - Delay in passing the detention order - Non-supply of vital documents to the detenue - Non-application of mind by the detaining authority - Legality of the detention order.

Fact of the Case:

Two habeas corpus petitions were filed challenging the detention orders passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) against two individuals, Sunil Longiya and Ghanshyam Soni. The petitioners alleged that the detention orders were not in conformity with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, there was a delay in passing the detention orders, vital documents were not supplied to the detenues, and there was a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the detention orders were valid in the case of Sunil Longiya but invalid in the case of Ghanshyam Soni. The court found that there was a delay in passing the detention orders in both cases, but the delay was explained by the detaining authority and was not unreasonable. The court also found that the detaining authority had not suppressed any material document from the detenues and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not vitiated. However, in the case of Ghanshyam Soni, the court found that some of the copies of the documents supplied to the detenue were illegible, which rendered his detention illegal.

Issues: 1. Whether the detention orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether there was an unreasonable delay in passing the detention orders? 3. Whether vital documents were supplied to the detenues? 4. Whether there was a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The detention orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The orders were expressed to be in the name of the Governor, as required by Article 166(1), and were authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules made by the Governor under Article 166(2). 2. There was a delay in passing the detention orders, but the delay was explained by the detaining authority and was not unreasonable. The court considered the sequence of events leading to the passing of the detention orders and found that the detaining authority had acted with due diligence. 3. Vital documents were supplied to the detenues. The court held that the detaining authority was not required to supply copies of documents that were not relied upon in the detention order or in the accompanying grounds of detention. The court also held that the detaining authority was not required to supply copies of documents that were not in the possession of the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority. 4. There was no total non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court found that the detaining authority had considered all the relevant material before making the detention orders.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Gyan Chand Jain, the father of Sunil Longiya, and allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by Dwarka Prasad Soni, the brother of Ghanshyam Soni. The court quashed and set aside the detention order passed against Ghanshyam Soni and directed that he be released forthwith.