TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenge detention order dated 2.8.2019 bearing F No.PD-12002/17/2019- COFEPOSA annexed at Annexure A. 3. As such, the impugned order of detention is challenged on various grounds, but at the end of the arguments, the Court noticed that there is no nexus or live link between the alleged illegal activity and purported claim of the detaining authority, as the alleged illegal activity had been committed between January, 2014 and July, 2015 while the impugned order has been passed on 2.8.2019. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce ground Xli. "You i.e. Shri Jitendrakumar Dhanjibhai Ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eged events and the detention order. The aforesaid order dated 27th January, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow:- The petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 15.11.2019 made under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. In the grounds of detention it is clearly stated that the petitioner appears to be part of a ring of smugglers, and between March, 2013 and March, 2015 731.705 Kgs. of gold were seized, which trace themselves back to this ring, worth around Rs. 204.60 Crores. The petitioner's statement was also recorded on 24/25.09.2019 which, however, was retracted on 27.09.2019. After hearing Mr. Saurav Kirpal, learned Advocate for the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n case of Pramodgiri Goswami and Mehul Bhimani and the aforesaid ground of detention, it applies to the petitioner, because there is no proximity link between the events of January, 2014 to July 2015 and that the impugned detention order, which has been passed nearly after four years and therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay in passing the detention order against the present petitioner vitiates the detention itself. 6. In the case on hand, the last and first prejudicial act recorded against the petitioner was in the month of January, 2014 to July, 2015, whereas the detention order is passed on 2.8.2019, which is after a period of four years. As such test of proximity is not mechanical test by merely counting number of months between....