TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njab and Haryana High Court quashing order of detention dated 19-12-1995 passed in respect of one Ratan Bagaria under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). Before the order of detention could be served on Shri Ratan Bagaria, his wife Smt. Vidya Bagaria, the respondent herein, filed Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') praying for issuance of writ or any other order quashing the order of detention passed by appellant No. 2 herein who was the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. Several grounds touching legality of grounds on which the order of detention wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cryptic manner before rejecting the plea. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the reasonings given by the High Court clearly indicate that the writ petition was maintainable and the legality of grounds were also duly tested. No infirmity therefore can be found with the order of the High Court. In any event, it was submitted that the order of detention was passed nearly nine years back and the purported apprehensions and the alleged objectionable activities of Mr. Bagaria have no relevance presently. 5. The question whether the detenu or any one on his behalf is entitled to challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surren- dering to it has been examined by this Court on various occasions. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not permitted as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained by suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Where it is open to the aggrieved person to move another Tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided in the statute, the Court does not, by exercising the writ jurisdiction, permit the machinery created by the statute to be by-passed; (iii) it does not generally enter upon the determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed; (iv) it does not interfere on the merits with the determination of the issues made by the authority invested with statutory power, particularly when they relate to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the dictates of another body or when the conclusion is arrived at by the application of a wrong test or misconstruction of a statute or it is not based on material which is of a rationally probative value and relevant to the subject-matter in respect of which the authority is to satisfy itself. If again the satisfaction is arrived at by taking into consideration material, which the authority properly could not, or by omitting to consider matters, which it sought to have, the Court interferes with the resultant order; (viii) in proper cases the Court also intervenes when some legal or fundamental right of the individual is seriously threatened, though not actually invaded." 6. In Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the Government o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances that the Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 or article 32 at the pre-execution stage. The petitioner had sought to contend that the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds but there is no material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not yet been executed. The petitioner does not have a copy of the same, and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the non-existent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds." (p. 632) 7. This Court's decision in Union of India v. Parasmal Rampuria [1998]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etention order and then to have all his grievances examined on merits after he had an opportunity to study the grounds of detention and to make his representation against the said grounds as required by article 22(5) of the Constitution." 8. In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India [2000] 3 SCC 409 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that a person may try to abscond and thereafter take a stand that period for which detention was directed is over and, therefore, order of detention is infructuous. It was clearly held that the same plea even if raised deserved to be rejected as without substance. It should all the more be so when the detenu stalled the service of the order and/or detention in custody by obtaining orders of Court. In f....