TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind or variance between the recorded subjective satisfaction and the grounds of detention; (ii) whether the detenu's right to make an effective and meaningful representation was infringed for want of supply of necessary material.
Issue (i): whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind or variance between the recorded subjective satisfaction and the grounds of detention?
Analysis: The detention order and the grounds had to be read together and as a whole. The record showed that the detaining authority relied on the detenu's attempted smuggling of foreign currency, the seizure under the panchanama, the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the past record of similar conduct. The reference to earlier incidents was used to reinforce the conclusion that preventive detention was necessary to stop future smuggling activities. The order reflected a conscious and relevant application of mind to the statutory requirement under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Conclusion: The challenge based on non-application of mind and variance between the order and the grounds failed and was answered against the detenu.
Issue (ii): whether the detenu's right to make an effective and meaningful representation was infringed for want of supply of necessary material?
Analysis: The documents and material necessary for making a representation had been supplied. The complaint was only that further particulars were not furnished, but the supplied documents themselves disclosed the relevant facts. On the facts, the detenu was not denied the opportunity guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no legal infirmity in the representation process or in the manner of consideration of the detenu's grievance.
Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of the right to represent was rejected and was answered against the detenu.
Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld on merits, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is sustainable where the detention record, read as a whole, discloses conscious application of mind to the relevant material and the detenu has been supplied sufficient material to make an effective representation.
TaxTMI 
