Detention order under COFEPOSA Section 3(1)(i) upheld despite SAFEMA proceedings and time lapse

Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a detention order under COFEPOSA dated 02.05.2005. The detenu's legal heirs sought to quash the order, arguing that SAFEMA proceedings had been initiated. The court held that the detention order under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA was justified as DRI investigation established the detenu's direct involvement in smuggling diesel oil of foreign origin and organizing finances and logistics. The court noted the detenu had voluntarily withdrawn his earlier petition with liberty to raise issues in SAFEMA proceedings. The time lapse between detention order and execution did not snap the live-link between prejudicial activity and detention's preventive purpose. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Knowledge of English language by the detenu.
2. Delay in execution of the detention order.
3. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
4. Non-supply of documents to the detenu.

Summary:

1. Knowledge of English Language by the Detenu:
The petitioner argued that the detenu had studied in Urdu medium and had no workable knowledge of English, rendering the detention order and related documents served in English ineffective. However, the detenu had made a statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which he claimed to understand English. This was further substantiated by his handwritten endorsement in English confirming the voluntary nature of his statement. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, noting that the detenu had previously filed an affidavit in English, indicating his understanding of the language.

2. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The petitioner contended that there was gross delay in executing the detention order, suggesting a lack of genuine subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. The court examined the efforts made by the authorities to serve the detention order, including multiple visits to the detenu's residence and publication in newspapers. The court concluded that the delay was due to the detenu absconding and avoiding service, thus attributing the delay to the detenu's own conduct.

3. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider that the responsibility for bringing the diesel oil was not of the detenu but of another individual, Bobby Chully. The court held that the detenu was directly involved in smuggling activities, including organizing finances and logistics, justifying the detention order u/s 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA.

4. Non-supply of Documents to the Detenu:
The petitioner claimed that the documents demanded by the detenu were not supplied, preventing him from making an effective representation against the detention order. The court found no substantial evidence to support this claim and dismissed it.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions. It was established that the detenu knew English, the delay in executing the detention order was due to the detenu's own actions, the detaining authority had applied its mind correctly, and there was no evidence of non-supply of documents. The interim order passed on 13.03.2004 was vacated, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

---