TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of Revenue Intelligence and a case was registered against him. He was released on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as 'DRI', by its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 made recommendation for the detenu's detention besides two others under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA alleging that they are part of a well-organised gang operating in smuggling of red sanders in India and abroad. The proposals of the DRI, hereinafter referred to as the sponsoring authority, were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. The detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The proposals of the detenu's detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reports of the sponsoring authority and the screen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preventive detention in its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 for the prejudicial activity of the detenu which had taken place on 17th of November, 2012 and the order of detention was passed on 6th of May, 2013 but this delay has sufficiently been explained. He submits that mere delay itself is not sufficient to hold that the order of detention is illegal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and we have no doubt in our mind that there has to be live link between the prejudicial activity and the order of detention. COFEPOSA intends to deal with persons engaged in smuggling activities who pose a serious threat to the economy and thereby security of the nation. Such persons by virtue of their large resources and influence cause delay in making of an order of detention. While dealing with the question of delay in making an order of detention, the court is required to be circumspect and has to take a pragmatic view. No hard and fast formula is possible to be laid or has been laid in this regard. However, one thing is clear that in case of delay, that has to be satisfactorily explained. After all, the purpose of preventive detention is to take immedia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gathered by them. 12. It is no doubt true that if the delay is sufficiently explained, the same would not be a ground for quashing an order of detention under COFEPOSA, but as in this case a major part of delay remains unexplained." Further, this Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Rajinder Arora v. Union of India, (2006) 4 SCC 796 in which it has been held as follows: "20. Furthermore no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the respondent as to why the order of detention has been issued after such a long time. The said question has also not been examined by the Authorities before issuing the order of detention. 21. The question as regards delay in issuing the order of detention has been held to be a valid ground for quashing an order of detention by this Court in T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) 4 SCC 741 stating: (SCC pp. 748-49, paras 10- 11) "10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time taken by the sponsoring authority in making recommendation cannot be said to be inordinate. The proposals of the sponsoring authority were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. As detention affects the liberty of a citizen, it has to be scrutinised and evaluated with great care, caution and circumspection. The detaining authority upon such scrutiny and evaluation decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. If one expects care and caution in scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals, the time taken by the detaining authority to place the proposals before the screening committee cannot be said to have been taken after inordinate delay. The meeting of the screening committee took place on 1st of February, 2013 in which the cases of the detenu and the two others were considered. The screening committee concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. As stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the record of the sponsoring authority, the screening committee and other materials consisted of over 1000 pages. As the final ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the security of the nation, the courts should not merely on account of the delay in making of an order of detention assume that such delay, if not satisfactorily explained, must necessarily give rise to an inference that there was no sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or that such subjective satisfaction was not genuinely reached. Taking of such a view would not be warranted unless the court finds that the grounds are stale or illusory or that there was no real nexus between the grounds and the impugned order of detention. In that case, there was no explanation for the delay between February 2, and May 28, 1987, yet it could not give rise to legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate was not genuine or that the grounds were stale or illusory or that there was no rational connection between the grounds and the order of detention." Mr. Basant, then assails the order of detention on the ground of its delayed execution. He points out that the order of detention was passed on 6th of May, 2013 whereas it was served on the detenu on 11th of June, 2013. He submits that had the detenu been a....