TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissing her application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the detention of her husband by the order dated December 11, 1985 under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA ACT', and also for the quashing of the declaration dated February 14, 1986 made under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. She has also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of both the aforesaid orders. A rule nisi has been issued on the writ petition. 2.  As prayed for, the special leave is granted. However, as elaborate arguments have been made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by him that the representation dated February 11, 1986 reached the declaring authority on February 13, 1986. It was dealt with and rejected by the respondent No. 2, Mr. M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, on February 14, 1986. The order under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was also made by him on that very day, that is, on February 14, 1986. The representation and the order rejecting it are contained in one file and the order under section 9(1) of the Act is contained in another file. We have also looked into the files produced before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The files were also looked into by Mr. Jethmalani. 5. It is not in dispute that the representation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s nothing to show that the denial of the detenu that was considered by the respondent No. 2 was his denial at the investigation stage. 6. Moreover, the respondent No. 2, Mr. Wadhawan, has filed an affidavit in which it has been stated by him that after the consideration of the representation, the declaration was made by him on February 14, 1986 keeping in mind the allegations made in the representation as well as the materials on record. The High Court has believed the statement of the respondent No. 2 and we do not also find any reason not to believe the same. In the circumstances, even though the representation has not been referred to in the declaration, there is ample evidence to show that the respondent No. 2 had considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could be recorded so far. This contention was also made before the High Court and the High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case came to the finding that the said letter of the detenu had been dealt with all reasonable promptness. The learned judge of the High Court recorded in his judgment as follows : "A perusal of the files reveals that this application was received by the Administrator on February 13, 1986. On the same day it was sent to the Collector of Customs for comments. The Collector of Customs on the same day sent the application to Customs Headquarter, Palam for comments. The Custom Office, Palam prepared comments and sent the same to Customs Headquarter on February 17, 1986. It may be mentioned that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the learned Judge has rightly observed that the act of the respondent No. 1 in calling for the comments from the Customs Department for the purpose of supplying the authentic information to the detenu was justified. The contention of the appellant is rejected. 10.  Lastly, it is complained on behalf of the appellant that the confirming authority had not considered at all the deposition of the defence witness, Mr. M.L. Khanna, the father of the detenu. It appears that the Advisory Committee has in its report referred to the evidence of the said M.L. Khanna. The report of the Advisory Committee was considered by the confirming authority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the confirming authority had not applied his mind ....