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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was unsustainable because it was based on the ground that the detenu had not submitted to the detention order, and whether the representation required fresh consideration.
Analysis: The representation had been directed to be considered even before execution of the detention order. The rejecting memorandum showed that the authority treated submission to the detention order as a prerequisite for consideration of the representation, which was contrary to the earlier judicial direction. The rejection therefore rested on an impermissible ground. In view of the change in law and later decisions referred to in the judgment, the matter required reconsideration on the merits of the representation.
Conclusion: The rejection order dated 24.04.2007 was set aside and the detaining authority was directed to reconsider the representation afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: A representation under Section 11 of COFEPOSA cannot be rejected on the ground that the detenu has not first submitted to the detention order, and if such an impermissible ground is adopted, the rejection is liable to be set aside and reconsideration directed.