TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid detention order. (2) Earlier the petitioner was arrested on 17th April, 1990 by the Custom Officers from outside the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, Along with Shahzad Ali, on the allegation that he was engaged in smuggling or carrying smuggled goods Along with Co-accused Shamsuddin Ismail. The gold was concealed in the washing machine and it weighted 4 kg. and 450 gms. A complaint under Sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act against the petitioner was filed on 26.5.90 on which show cause notice was also issued. Petitioner was produced before the Magistrate. He was remanded to the judicial custody and was released on bail on 29th November, 1990. When he was under arrest his statement was recorded but after being released on bail he extracted the said statement on the ground that the same was obtained under coercion. The detention order dated 5.6.91 was served on the petitioner on 10th July, 1991. (3) On 30th July, 1991, petitioner made a representation under Article 22 of the Constitution of India asking for documents and legible copies of the documents. On 13.8.91 petitioner send a representation to the Advisory Board. On 16.8.91 he made another repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and had an interior decorator shop at Dubai: that his brother has been visiting Indian on various occasions for various purposes and that his brother received a telephone call from Dubai that Guffar Ali Khan had see a washing machine through one person who would be wearing white shirt and blue trouser and petitioner in to receive him at the Airport. It was also stated the Shahzad Ali was to receive the same passenger. (7) Petitioner knew Shahzad Ali for the last two to three months. Gaffar Ali was a good friend of Kamaljit Singh, petitioner's brother. Petitioner and Shahzad Ali reached the Airport and waited for the passenger from Dubai who was to bring the washing machine with the concealed gold. It was further stated that the petitioner knew about the concealing of the gold. Previously also whoever had been bringing the concealed gold used to be paid ₹ 2,000.00 . Further voluntary statement was recorded on 18.4.90 in which petitioner indicated that a person named Patel was also involved who happened to be a friend of Gaffar Ali. He further disclosed that every time the machine was used to bring concealed gold weighing from 2 to 5 Kg.; that in the compressor of the air ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead of justifying its action and explaining the delay the respondent has attributed the delay to the procedural formalities, because of which it book time in issuance of the detention order. Instead of explaining its action and justifying the delay the respondent simply took the plea that live link did not snap. The facts which have come on record shows that the incident took place on 17.4.90. Complaint was filed on 26.5.90. Show cause notice was issued by the customs Department in adjudication proceedings on 9th October, 1990. This shows the investigation was complete. But the detention order for the same incident was passed on 5.6.91 i.e. approximately after a period of 14 months. Thus, to my mind, the link stood snapped. There could not have been any proximity between the incident and the avowed purpose of the detention namely the preventing and smuggling activities. As per the respondent's own affidavit the proposal for detaining the petitioner was initiated in June, 1990 i.e. almost after two months from the incident. There is infact no Explanation worth the name why the detaining authority kept sitting for the so-called information from the sponsoring authority for a peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Issac Babu Vs. Union of India. reported in (1190) 4 SCC 134. In that case also delay was not satisfactorily explained in passing the order of detention, Therefore, the order was quashed. In the present case also from the reply to ground (c) as already observed above, 14 months delay has not been explained. Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that delay in passing detention order is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. (12) Beside the delay in passing the detention order and the snapping of link between the ground of detention and passing of the order, the other ground token by the petitioner is that his representation seeking copy of the documents relied by the respondents was not disposed of expeditiously. It is a well settled principle of law that the representation made by the petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution has to be disposed of expeditiously and if there is a delay it has to be explained. But there is no Explanation for the delay of 17 days i.e. from 2.8.91 to 19.8.91, in disposal of the representation. In reply to grounds (1) & (2) the respondent has taken the plea that the representation of the petitioner was on 1.8.91 and not of 30.7.91 and....