TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... By the impugned judgment the detention order was quashed. The State of Gujarat has impugned the High Court's decision by the present Special Appeal Application. 2. Special leave is granted. 3. The detention order was passed on the 20th of October, 1984, but could not be served on the detenu earlier than 4-7-1986 as he was absconding. The grounds of detention served on him as mentioned in Annexure B state that information was received by the customs staff of Ahmedabad on 26-9-1984 that a notorious smuggler, Juwansinh Jadeja, had shifted his smuggling activities to the coast of Chorwad in Saurashtra, and was working on behalf of two citizens of Pakistan. Information about Jadeja's main associates was also received. The authorities were in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foreign origin and were valued at over Rs. 68 lakhs. Similar contraband goods were discovered in the other trucks also. Later a fourth truck was also intercepted. The arrested persons gave vital clues about the clandestine business of smuggling and named respondent Mahendra V. Shah as being directly involved in the business. It was inter alia stated that Mahendra V. Shah had gone to the coast where the goods were received. The grounds have mentioned the various activities of the detenu including the fact that he was travelling in the Ambassador car MRH 6595. We do not consider it necessary to mention here all the details of his activities. 4. As stated earlier, although the order of detention was made in October, 1984, it could not be serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate, Junagadh...." In paragraph 6 of the State's counter affidavit this fact was pointedly mentioned and it was stated that the mistake in the description was of drafting, and the detaining authority had considered the same while passing the order of their detention and that there was no substance in the point taken on behalf of the detenu. 7. The stand of the State that the petition dated 3-10-1984 was considered by the detaining authority appears to be right. The original file dealing with the denenu's case was produced in Court for our perusal, and we found that the Home Minister, State of Gujarat, while passing the order for detention made a detailed note running in several paragraphs and in paragraph 2 he pointedly mentioned both the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the High Court, and he was, therefore, not available. Sri M.T. Parmar, the then Deputy Secretary, Home Department was fully conversant with the case and had filed his affidavit. The original file was produced before us to dispel any suspicion about the detaining authority having considered the document dated 3-10-1984 and having felt satisfied that it was a proper case for detention of the respondent. In this background we do not attach much importance of the fact that the affidavit was not filed by the detaining authority personally. 9. The next point urged by Mr. Bobde was that it was necessary to have mentioned in the grounds (Annexure B) served on the detenu the fact that the detaining authority was of the view that "not much cre....