ASHOK KUMAR ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ashok Kumar Anand is being detained with effect from 7-10-1988 vide detention order dated 30-9-1988 Annexure-P-1 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the detaining authority, under S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). The grounds of detention Annexure-P-2 were served upon the detenu on 7-10-88. After obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, the confirmation order Annexure-P'3 was passed on 13-3-1989 by the concerned authority. The representations filed by the petitioner to the Central Government and detaining authority were rejected on 9-12-1988 vide communication Annexure-P-5. The detaining authority passed the declaration under S.9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The petitioner had earlier challenged the above referred detention order by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1258 of 1989 which was dismissed by Mr. Justice S.D. Bajaj on 2-5-1989 in view of the pendency of similar writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide order dated 17-3-1989 has also dismissed Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 545 and 576 of 1988 filed by the petitioner along with other detenus challenging the above referred order of detention as well as order of declaration passed under S.9(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA Act respectively. The Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the judgement of the Delhi High Court is pending in the Supreme Court of India. It is also admitted at the bar that a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner is also pending before the Supreme Court.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition on fresh grounds which were allegedly not taken in any of the earlier petitions.

(3.) It is, inter alia, maintained that the detention order against detenus Naresh Chadha and Krishan Lal Chawla detained on the same grounds was revoked by the detaining authority on the opinion of the Advisory Board but this fact was not brought to the notice of the concerned authority while passing the confirmation order regarding the detention of the petitioner. It is further maintained that the representation filed by the petitioner was illegally rejected by the detaining authority and that before passing the declaration order under Section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act, only the statement of Madan Lal Anand co-detenu was supplied and the remaining documents relied upon by the concerned authority were not supplied and thus it is maintained that the declaration is bad in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the detention order is also liable to be quashed being vague as it is not mentioned under which clause of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the activities of the detenu fell and thus it shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority.