Court adds Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent in COFEPOSA detention order challenge. Petition dismissed for lack of grounds.

The Court allowed the impleadment of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3 in the petition. The petitioner sought to quash a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act, which was the second petition filed after previous legal challenges were dismissed by the Division Bench and Supreme Court. Despite citing various grounds for challenging the detention order, including acquittal for IPC offences and delay in execution, the Court found no valid reasons for a second challenge and dismissed the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
- Impleadment of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3
- Quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act
- Dismissal of earlier writ petition and SLP by Supreme Court
- Representation to revoke detention order based on co-detenu's quashed detention
- Acquittal of detenu for IPC offences
- Delay in executing detention order
- Grounds for challenging detention order in second petition

Impleadment of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3:
The application for impleadment of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as Respondent No. 3 in the petition is allowed by the Court.

Quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner sought to quash a detention order dated 10th October 2016 under the COFEPOSA Act to prevent smuggling activities by her husband. This was the second petition filed for the same cause after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by a Division Bench of the Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Dismissal of earlier writ petition and SLP by Supreme Court:
The Court noted the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by a Division Bench and the subsequent dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, indicating a prior legal challenge to the detention order.

Representation to revoke detention order based on co-detenu's quashed detention:
A representation was made to the detaining authority after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, citing the quashing of the co-detenu's detention order as a ground to revoke the detenu's detention. However, this representation was rejected by the Director General, CEIB.

Acquittal of detenu for IPC offences:
The detenu was acquitted for IPC offences by the ACMM on the grounds of failure to serve summons personally, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Delay in executing detention order:
The petitioner highlighted a delay in executing the detention order, stating a lapse of more than 39 days between the order date and actual service, questioning the live connection between alleged activities and the need for detention.

Grounds for challenging detention order in second petition:
The petitioner raised multiple grounds for challenging the detention order in the second petition, including the representation rejection, acquittal for IPC offences, delay in execution, and treatment disparity with the co-detenu. However, the Court found no valid grounds for a second challenge and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

---