- (1.) SIX separate deten tion orders each dated 30th July, 1997 were passed under the provisions of Conserva tion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the COFEPOSA Act)' by the State Government on identical grounds. Out of whom two petitioners, namely. Babu Khan alias Babu Ahmad Siddiqui petitioner of W. P. No. 655 (H,c.) of 1997 and Vikas Gupta petitioner of Writ Petition No. 719 (H. C.) of 1997 are before us. So far as detention orders passed against Tahir Ali the alleged partner of Babu Khan, Mohd. Shafiq Driver of the truck, Iqrar Ahmad, Cleaner of the truck and Chhuttan an al leged servant of Babu Khan, are con cerned, they were revoked by the State Government probably on the basis of the opinion received from the Advisory Board.
(2.) THE records of these six detenus maintained by the State Government in the Secretariat were called by us from which it- is clear that all the six were detained on identical reasons and-grounds. In fact, the detention orders passed against all these six persons are verbatim true copy of each other from top to bottom. All the six detention orders were passed under Section 3 (i) and (iii) of the COFEPOSA Act in order to prevent the deteuns from smuggling the goods or engaging in transporting or concealing and keeping the smuggled goods. The detention orders were passed on a single ground, according to which on 17-11-1996 a Custom Preventive Party constituted by Assistant Commissioner (Custom) on the basis of a secret informa tion, was waiting with a Gypsy on Bareilly-Budaun Road. At about 12. 30 p. m. a Tata-407 Truck bearing Registration No. UP-25-6824 fitted with a speaker, was seen approaching. When it was signalled to stop, it tried to speed away which was chased by the Preventive Party with Gyspy, Ultimately, the said Truck was over taken but before that the Truck dashed the Gyspy but because of the swift action of the driver of the Gypsy it did not over-turn. The Preventive Party had to fire on the Truck in order to stop it. Ultimately, the Truck had to stop and immediately thereafter five persons were seen running away by firing at the Gypsy. On the cross-firing made by the Preventive Party two persons lied on the ground and three of them succeeded in running away through sugarcane fields. Those two persons were arrested who dis closed their names as Mohd. Shafiq driver of the Truck and Iqrar Ahmad cleaner of the Truck. The ground further goes on to mention that when the Truck was searched immediately thereafter it was found that it had rice-bran Power packed in bags. When search was made underneath the bags, smugglled bearing and Video Cassettes of National Panasonic were recovered. The bearings were valued at Rs. 46,08,000/- and Vidio Cassettes were valued at Rs. 60,000/-and as such, the smuggled goods recovered from the Truck were valued at Rs. 46,68,000/ -. The arrested persons could not give any documents and, therefore, believing that these were smuggled goods, were seized under the Customs Act. The Truck was also seized including the rice-bran as they were used for smuggling the goods. The statements of Driver and Cleaner who were arrested on the spot, were recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act in which Mohd. Shafiq driver disclosed that Vikas Gupta the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 719 (H. C.) of 1997 was the owner of the Truck and he had asked him to transport the truck to Ghaziabad. The person who fired at the Preventive Party immediately after getting down from the Truck, was none else but Babu Khan the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 655 (H. C.) of 1997 who was the owner of the goods. He further stated that the goods loaded in the Truck belonged to Babu Khan who is owner of India Rice Mill and Babu Khan had given Rs. 8. 000/- as transportation charges to the truck owner and Babu Khan had himself piloted that truck for some distance and thereafter, he went back stating that the route ahead was clear. The cleaner of the truck also gave same statement under Section 107 of the Customs Act. Under Section 108 of the Customs Act Mohd. Shafiq Driver of the Truck further stated that at the time of occurrence that Truck was being driven by Vikas Gupta alias Kalloo and Vikas Gupta had also succeeded in running away after the Truck was brought to a halt by firing by the Custom Preventive Party. Chhuttan Khan was also sitting in the Thick. Prior to that Mohd. Shafiq Driver had also earlier gone on a similar faciency. The driver fur ther stated that Dr. Tahir is a man of Babu Khan and he is doing the business in partnership with Babu Khan at present, r. Tahir Ali is also Chairman of Nawab- ganj Nagar Palika and the driver that the truck contained smugglled goods. Almost statement was given under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the cleaner of the Truck. Later on it was discovered that Tahir Ali is not the Chairman of the Nawabganj Nagar Palika and his second wife is the Chairman. It is further men tioned in the detention order that the gang of Babu Khan is engaged in smuggling activities for quite sometime. In February 1996 in a matter relating to smuggled goods valued at Rs; 25 Lacs Babu Khan absconded after threatening the police regarding which a case had been registered. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for Union of India and learned Government Advocate, we find that the two detention orders in question cannot be sustained. So far as the case of Vikas Gupta is concerned, his case is identical with case of Mohd. Shafiq and Iqrar Ahmad. It may be reported here that Mohd. Shafiq and Iqrar Ahmad were driver and cleaner of the truck and had been arrested on the spot. It may again be repeated that the Driver of the truck namely, Mohd. Shafiq in his statement under Section 108 of the Cus toms Act had admitted that he knew that the Truck contained the smuggled goods. The State Government revoked the deten tion order passed against Mohd. Shafiq as well as Iqrar Ahmad whereas had con firmed it against Vikas Gupta. The role assigned to all the three of them is similar and the ground of detention against all the 3 persons is identical, as a matter of fact, word for word. If it is true that Vikas Gupta is the owner of the Truck, but it is also true that Mohd. Shafiq and Iqrar Ahmad had been arrested on the spot whereas Vikas Gupta had not been arrested. All the three of them, it at all, were engaged in smug gling the goods and engaged in transport ing and concealing and keeping the smug gled goods. In view of this, if the State Government revoked the detention orders passed against Mohd. Shafiq and Iqrar Ahmad, there was no justification for con firming the-same against Vikas Gupta. Apart from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is mechanical exercise of power on the part of the State. In view of this, the detention order passed against Vikas Gupta had to be quashed.
(3.) SO far as Babu Khan petitioner of Writ Petition No. 655 (HC) of 1997 is concerned, it has been mentioned in the grounds of detention that his gang was engaged in smuggling activities for quite some time and in a case of smuggling of goods valued at Rs. 25 Lacs Babu Khan absconded after threatening the Police in the year 1996 regarding which a case was registered, in Paragraph 8 of the petition it had been mentioned that in that case in vestigation was closed because in spite of the fact that several persons by the name of Babu Khan were questioned in Nawabganj but none was found involved in any case of smuggling activities. Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority while passing the detention order against Babu Khan took into consideration the extraneous material and the relevant material that Babu Khan was not found involved in any previous smuggling activities, was not placed before the State Government. In view of this, the detention order passed against Babu Khan is also vitiated. Apart from the above, both the detention orders have to fall yet on another ground. As mentioned above, the detention orders passed against all the six persons including the two petitioners are verbatim true copies of each other from beginning to end in spite of the fact that all the six of them had different roles assigned to them in the smuggling activities according to the detaining authority. It shows a mechanical exercise of power in issuing cyclostyled identical detention orders without shifting material applicable to each of the detenu. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged other grounds also but we need not adjudicate upon them as the petitions have been disposed of otherwise.;