TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the Union of India. The skeletal facts relevant to be noticed are that on 08.03.2014, the detenu was arrested under the Customs Act at about 1.30 p.m. while he was travelling in a Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. WB 26 S 2600 in Beliaghat area of Taki Road, district of North 24 Parganas. The car was being driven by one Moksed Mandal and on a search thereof 44.659 kilograms of smuggled gold was recovered by the Revenue Intelligence Authorities. The detenu, though arrested, was later released on bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata on 12.03.2014. The bail was, however, cancelled eventually on 14.05.2014 against which he preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4387 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court on 28.05.2014 in the following terms: "We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court cancelling the bail of the petitioner which was granted to him by the trial court, at the same time, having regard to the nature of issue involved in the matter, we direct the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to complete the Investigation expeditiously and preferably within four weeks fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....challan was submitted. It was indicated in the said letter as well that in such an eventuality, there was a possibility of the appellant absconding from law and that, thus, his detention under the Act was warranted. Incorporating the above contents of the letter and citing the same to be additional grounds, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau COFEPOSA Wing, ordered his detention under the Act on 13.06.2014. There is no indication that the order dated 13.06.2014 directing detention of the detenu was in supercession of the one dated 27.05.2014. Thus, on record, as on 13.06.2014, there did exist two orders, one dated 27.05.2014 and the other dated 13.06.2014 directing preventive detention of the detenu under the Act citing different grounds. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record and the parties are not in issue that the detenu on 08.07.2014 had submitted a representation challenging the grounds of his detention, addressed to the Special Secretary-cum-Director General of CEIB, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who was the appropriate authority to consider a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taken note of by the detaining authority on the purported ground that the same was subsequent to the order of detention dated 27.05.2014, further detention of the appellant was constitutionally invalid. This was, as would be evident from the order dated 13.06.2014 that several letters/communications subsequent to 27.05.2014 were taken note of and relied upon by the detaining authority to derive its so called satisfaction. Per contra, Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General has urged that a plain reading of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the relevant provision of the Act does not mandate an inflexible time frame for the Central Government to dispose of the detenu's representation and, thus, not only it was not incumbent on its part to forward the detenu's representation dated 08.07.2014 to the Advisory Board but it was allowable as well for it to consider and reject the same thereafter within a reasonable period. As the Central Government had disposed of the detenu's representation within a reasonable time from its submission, i.e. 08.07.2014, it cannot be held to be guilty of any inaction, negligence or indifference. She urged, referring al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government was to send the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board and, if thereafter the Advisory Board expressed its opinion in favour of the release of the detenu, the Government would release him/her. It was noted as well that if the Advisory Board would express any opinion against the release of the detenu, it would still be open for the Government to release the detenu. True it is, as the text of that judgment would reveal, that, in that case, the representation submitted by the detenu had remained pending with the Central Government even after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, in our opinion, the same does not detract from the unequivocal and authoritative proposition laid down by this Court vis-a-vis the obligation of the Central Government to forward the pending representation to the Advisory Board for its consideration. The above view resonated in affirmation as well in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader (supra) wherein this Court, in paragraph 16, reiterated the above. For ready reference, we consider it appropriate to extract the same : "16. We agree with the observations in frances Coralie Mullin case. The time imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the Advisory Board along with the records of the detenu. This assumes significance, in our comprehension, in view of the binding nature of the opinion of the Advisory Board, in case, on a consideration of the materials on record, it decides to hold against the detention. In case, the Advisory Board holds that the detention order is invalid, it is not open for the appropriate Government to continue therewith and it has to essentially revoke the same though the converse may not be the same. In other words, if the Advisory Board upholds the order of detention, it would still be open to the Central Government, depending on the merits of each case, to release the detenu. The fact that the opinion of the Advisory Board against continuance of the order of detention is final vis-a-vis the appropriate Government, in our opinion, is the motivating imperative for requiring the appropriate Government to forward the pending representation to the Advisory Board so as to enable it to traverse the entire panorama of grounds taken against the detention order for an effective, timely and meaningful consideration of the case of the detenu. This requirement as has been essentially recognized and....