2020 (4) TMI 442 - HC - GST

Court upholds legality of detention in Special Camp, dismisses challenges. Emphasizes non-interference, speedy trial post-lockdown.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the legality of detention in a Special Camp at Tiruchirapalli under the Foreigners Act, 1946. It upheld ... Prayer for release of petitioners from the Special Camp at Tiruchirapalli and allow them to stay at Belchem 804, Hiranandini Post, Oragadam, Kancheepuram, due to the prevailing pandemic - case of petitioners is that social distancing is not maintained there properly - HELD THAT:- After seeing the photographs sent by the learned counsel for the Petitioners through e-mail, pertaining to the present condition of the rooms in the Special Camp and the inmates staying there, this Court intended to ascertain the veracity of the same. Accordingly, one S.N.Suthanthira Rajan, Special Deputy Collector was connected through WhatsApp Video call today, and he took this Court to the maximum areas of the Special Camp in Tiruchirapalli District. After watching the same, this Court is able to visualize that, the Special Camp is maintained neatly and there are no stains in the Toilets. When sufficient space is available in the Special Camp in Tiruchirapalli District to accommodate 80 persons and that, only 73 inmates are staying there, this Court is of the view that, photographs furnished by the Petitioners to the effect that, more number of persons are detained in a single room without any sign of social distancing, have been taken by the Petitioners only for the purpose of this case. By doing so, Petitioners are inviting diseases and none can be blamed for their act - It appears that, the Petitioners herein are unable to realize the consequences of the prevailing pandemic. When the Central and State Governments are taking effective steps to prevent further spread of COVID- 19, public, as responsible citizens must extend utmost co-operation to the Government in eradicating this pandemic and shall not try to disrupt the functioning of the Government. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Legality of detention in the Special Camp at Tiruchirapalli.2. Allegations of non-compliance with COVID-19 safety measures in the Special Camp.3. Petitioners' request to stay at an alternate location due to COVID-19.4. Validity of the address provided by the Petitioners.5. Risk of Petitioners fleeing the country.6. Speedy trial request by the Government Pleader.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Detention in the Special Camp:The Petitioners were detained in the Special Camp at Tiruchirapalli following their arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, for collecting GST and not remitting it to the Government. They were initially granted interim bail but were remanded back to custody due to non-compliance with bail conditions. The Court noted that the detention decision was taken by the State Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and emphasized that courts cannot interfere with such decisions.2. Allegations of Non-Compliance with COVID-19 Safety Measures:The Petitioners argued that the Special Camp did not maintain proper social distancing and disinfectant measures. However, the Respondents countered that regular disinfection and medical check-ups were conducted, and adequate space was available to maintain social distancing norms. The Court verified the conditions via a WhatsApp video call and found the camp to be well-maintained, dismissing the Petitioners' claims as fabricated for the case.3. Petitioners' Request to Stay at an Alternate Location:The Petitioners sought permission to stay at an alternate location in Kancheepuram due to the pandemic. The Court rejected this request, highlighting the risk of spreading COVID-19 if the Petitioners moved to a new area. It was noted that the Petitioners were currently in a safe environment, and their release could set a precedent leading to similar requests from other detainees, potentially overwhelming the State machinery.4. Validity of the Address Provided by the Petitioners:The Petitioners' residential address was disputed by the Respondents, who claimed that the Petitioners had provided a false address and had vacated their previous residence. The Court decided not to delve into the accuracy of the address at this stage, stating that it was not within its purview to investigate such matters.5. Risk of Petitioners Fleeing the Country:The Respondents expressed concerns that the Petitioners might flee the country if released, citing previous instances of non-cooperation and absconding. The Court acknowledged this risk, noting that several Non-Bailable Warrants had been issued against the Petitioners. It emphasized the importance of ensuring that the Petitioners remained in custody to face trial.6. Speedy Trial Request by the Government Pleader:The Government Pleader requested a speedy trial for the Petitioners. The Court found this plea justified and directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I) to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis post-COVID-19 lockdown, without unnecessary adjournments.Conclusion:The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the Court emphasized the importance of cooperation with government measures during the pandemic. It also highlighted the usefulness of video calls for judicial proceedings and site inspections, suggesting broader implementation for efficiency.