High Court upholds detention order in writ petition, finding detaining authority's decision based on relevant material.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the detention order. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding non-supply of documents, delay in passing the detention order, and delay in disposing of the representation. The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was deemed based on relevant material, supporting the detention order. The Court referenced precedents to justify preventive detention while the individual was in judicial custody, emphasizing the likelihood of imminent release.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order served while the petitioner was already in judicial custody.
2. Non-supply and illegibility of relevant documents to the detenu.
3. Delay in passing the detention order.
4. Delay in disposing of the petitioner's representation.
5. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order Served While the Petitioner Was Already in Judicial Custody:
The petitioner argued that the detention order served on him while he was already in judicial custody amounted to "double detention." The Court, however, found that the detaining authority had compelling reasons to believe that the petitioner might be released on bail and could indulge in activities prejudicial to the smuggling of foreign exchange. The Court cited various precedents, including Vijay Kumar Vs. State of J. & K., to support the legitimacy of preventive detention even when the individual is in judicial custody, provided there is a likelihood of imminent release.

2. Non-Supply and Illegibility of Relevant Documents to the Detenu:
The petitioner contended that certain relevant documents were not supplied to him, and some of the supplied documents were illegible, which hindered his ability to make an effective representation. The Court found that the petitioner's argument was contradictory, as he simultaneously claimed that irrelevant documents were considered by the detaining authority. The Court held that non-supply of irrelevant or innocuous documents does not vitiate the detention order. The Court also noted that the documents supplied were sufficient for the petitioner to make an effective representation, and thus, there was no violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

3. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained delay of eight months between the alleged recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs on 12.9.93 and the passing of the detention order on 2.5.94. The Court found that the delay was justified due to the voluminous nature of documents and the number of persons involved in the investigation. The Court cited Ram Dass Chauhan Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others and other cases to support its decision that the delay did not invalidate the detention order.

4. Delay in Disposing of the Petitioner's Representation:
The petitioner claimed that there was an undue delay of 49 days in disposing of his representation. The Court examined the timeline and found that the representation made on 30.5.94 was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 17.6.94. Further representations were also promptly addressed. The Court concluded that there was no undue delay in considering the representations, citing Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Union of India & Ors. to support its findings.

5. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and relied on irrelevant documents. The Court found that the detaining authority had sufficient proximate and cogent material to arrive at its subjective satisfaction. The Court noted that while voluminous documents were before the detaining authority, it relied only on relevant documents to form its subjective satisfaction, as required by law. The Court cited Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema Vs. B.B. Gujaral & Another to emphasize that not all documents referenced need to be supplied, only those relied upon for the detention.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the detention order was valid and justified. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the non-supply of documents, delay in passing the detention order, and delay in disposing of the representation. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed to be based on relevant and cogent material, thereby upholding the detention order.

---