V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, Madan Lal Girdhar, is seeking a writ, order or direction, for quashing of detention order dated 4.2.1994 (Annexure- 10) passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1947 (in short, the Act).
(2.) THE petition has been filed at the pre-detention stage. In brief, the facts are that on the basis of specific intelligence collected, developed and processed, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi, raided the business as well as residential premises of the petitioner, at shop No. 138 New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi and F-133, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, respectively. The raiding searching of the business as well as residential premises, which was made on 30.8.1993, resulted in recovery of 8000 Pcs. of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) Modules of foreign origin and 1,90,000 Pcs. of said L.C.D. Modules of foreign origin respectively. During this raid/search of both the premises, petitioner was not available on the spot. At the business premises, on employee of the petitioner, namely Om Parkash, was present who on demand could not produce and document showing the lawful import, acquisition and possession of the recovered L.C.D. Modules. Similarly, at the residential premises, the wife of the petitioner, namely Shashi Girdhar, on demand, could not produce any such document. Accordingly on the reasonable belief that the L.C.D. Modules of foreign origin recovered from the business and residential premises of the petitioner were liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act (in short, the 1962 Act). According to the respondents, recovered Modules were valued at Rs. 59 lacs approximately. Petitioner apprehending his arrest, filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, showing himself to be resident of "29-E, Jadu Nath Ukil Road, West Putiari, Calcutta-41" and obtained ad-interim order on 27.9.1993. The said interim order was to the following effect :- "In view of the urgency of this matter requirement of Rule 27 of the writ Rules is dispensed with. There will be an ad-interim order to the effect that in the event the petitioner is interrogated by the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, he shall be accompanied by a lawyer. The lawyer will only be present but will into participate in the proceedings. Such interrogation shall be done during the office hours and the petitioner shall not be arrested without the leave of the Court. In connection with the seizure of LCD Modules made by the officers of Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, on 30th August 1993, from the residence and shop of the petitioner. This interim order continue till October 11, 1993. Let this matter be listed for orders on October 11, 1993. Petitioner is directed to serve copies of the writ petition along with copy of this order upon all the respondents in the meantime and affirm affidavit of service to that effect. Petitioner is given leave to apply for extention of the interim order on the same application upon notice to the respondents. The respondents are also given leave to apply for variation and/or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocate for the petitioner on his usual undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the same. Sd/- (Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.)" On 4th February, 1994, order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act was passed against the petitioner. The present petition for quashing of detention order was filed in this Court on 19th April 1994. In the petition, petitioner has shown himself to be resident of "771, Mohalla Khail - Kalan, Palwal (Haryana )." However, the documents which are attached with the petition, show that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, is resident, of "E-133, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-3, New Delhi." In the petition, petitioner has not disclosed that previous to this petition, he had filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court. He has also not disclosed about the result/ fact of the petition filed by him in the Calcutta High Court. In the petition, quashing of the detention order, has been sought on the ground that L.C.D. Modules (watch parts) were duly custom paid at Bombay and so, the goods cannot be termed as smuggled goods. Quashing has also been sought on the ground that L.C.D. Modules belonged to M/s Modern Time Industries, who had got it imported from Hong-Kong.
(3.) ON 19.4.1994, this petition came up for hearing before V.K. Bali, J. and on a prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, arrest of the petitioner was stayed subject to his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of arresting officer that he will not leave the place of his residence. The interim order continues still date. After notice of the petition, Sh. Mahendra Parshad, Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, has filed written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Respondents have stated that the petitioner has misled the Court by giving false address of Palwal. In fact, petitioner is resident of E-133, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-3, New Delhi. Further, it has been stated that the offence was committed at Delhi in the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court, and also that the petitioner had filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, which fact petitioner has not disclosed in this petition. Mr. H.L. Sibal and Mr. H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocates, Counsel for the petitioner, have contended that the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the main person namely Har Bhagwan Wadhwa son of Uttam Chand against whom order of detention was passed, has been ordered to be released by the Advisory Board. In answer to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Sharma standing counsel for the Union of India (respondents) has contended that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.;