TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Unexplained Delays Invalidate Detention: Article 22(5) Breach</h1> <h3>Sangeetha Kirti Patel Versus RA Rajeev Principal Secretary (Appeals And Security) And Others</h3> Sangeetha Kirti Patel Versus RA Rajeev Principal Secretary (Appeals And Security) And Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act, 1974.2. Breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India due to delay in considering the representation.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA Act, 1974:The petitioner, the wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order dated 29th September 2014 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu was alleged to be an active member of a cartel involved in smuggling Red Sanders, a natural resource protected under CITES and prohibited for export under EXIM Policy. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 151 MTs of Red Sanders valued at approximately Rs. 60 Crores from Nhava Sheva and Panvel, revealing the detenu's involvement in smuggling activities. The detenu was also found to have rented a warehouse for storing and stuffing Red Sanders in export containers disguised as onions. The detaining authority, after considering the evidence and documents, issued the detention order to prevent the detenu from engaging in future smuggling activities.2. Breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:The petitioner confined the challenge to the impugned order based on the breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, arguing that the representation was not considered promptly and expeditiously. The Division Bench had previously quashed a similar detention order for a co-detenu on the same grounds. The representation dated 3rd December 2014, submitted by the petitioner, was received on 8th December 2014. The detaining authority sought parawise comments from the sponsoring authority, which were delayed due to verification processes and holidays. The comments were eventually received on 2nd January 2015, and the representation was rejected on 3rd January 2015. Similarly, the Additional Chief Secretary received the representation on 8th December 2014, sought comments, and rejected the representation on 8th January 2015 after a delay involving holidays and a change in officeholders.The court noted that the delay in deciding the representation was not satisfactorily explained. The detaining authority and the Additional Chief Secretary failed to justify the time taken for verification and processing of parawise comments. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to consider representations expeditiously. The unexplained delays of 20 days by the detaining authority and 25 days by the Additional Chief Secretary, along with the 21-day delay by the sponsoring authority, were deemed violations of Article 22(5).Conclusion:The court concluded that the unsatisfactory explanation for the delays in considering the representation rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal. The breach of Article 22(5) vitiated the detention order, leading the court to allow the petition and order the immediate release of the detenu. The judgment underscored the importance of prompt and diligent consideration of representations to uphold constitutional rights.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
