IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11427 of 2012
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =========================================================
TSHIMANGA MUKANDI JEAN - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 2 - Respondents
========================================================= Appearance :
MR AM PAREKH for Petitioner.
MR HRIDAY BUCH, SR.CENTRAL GOVT.COUNSEL for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, MS AMITA SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3, =========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI
Date : 08/10/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a national-resident of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), has challenged the detention order dated 2.5.2012 being F.No. 673/01/2012- Cus.VIII passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, COFEPOSA unit who has been detained under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short “COFEPOSA”).
2. Pursuant to the summons of `Rule-nisi' issued in this matter, the detaining authority has filed affidavit dated 21.9.2012 on her behalf as well as on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
3. The brief facts of the present case emerges from the record of the case are as under:-
3.1 Specific information was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad that two foreign nationals of Congo namely Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean and Shri Leon had arrived at Surat from Congo on 5.8.2011 and were staying in Hotel Gateway, Athwalines, Parle Point, Surat and they had brought smuggled rough diamonds weighing around 8000 to 9000 Carats of Congo origin concealed in their baggage without KPC (Kimberley Process Certificate) and without any legal documents. The rough diamonds were supposed to be handed over to one Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya of Rajkot, who was staying in Hotel Jeevandhara at Varachha Road, Surat and uses the locker of Shri Bharatbhai Savalia for keeping the diamonds. Accordingly, searches were conducted by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Room Nos. 510 and 517 of Gateway Hotel, occupied by Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean and Shri Leon Bukasa Kayamba respectively on 07.08.2011. Although no rough diamonds were recovered from them, however copy of one KPC No. CD 011059 dated 08.07.2011 valid till dated 23.07.2011 for rough diamonds qty. 144, 10 and 752,68 ctrs. issued in the name of M/s. Yuvika Impes Pvt. Ltd. 201 2nd Floor, Pramukh Darshan Apartment, Opp: Patidar Bhavan, Rampura, Surat by Democratic Republic of Congo and copy of one valuation certificate dated 06.07.2011 issued by Director Finance, Democratic Republic of Congo were found in their possession. Those documents were seized for investigation.
3.2 A search of Room No. 102, Hotel Jeevandhara situated at Varachha Road, Surat, occupied by Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya of Rajkot on 07.08.2011 resulted in recovery of rough diamonds totally weighing 6667.460 carats from two packets. As Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya was not able to produce any legal import documents and KPC for the said rough diamonds, those were detained under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for further investigation. Also locker No. 1774, 1st Basement Parking Area, Princess Plaza Building, Mangarh Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat possessed by Shri Bharatbhai Savalia was also searched on 07.08.2011 which resulted in recovery of a sealed envelope containing rough diamonds. Thus rough diamonds totally weighing 10,510.60 carats and valued at Rs. 4,24,34,182.00 (USD 9,49,310.60) were seized under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into the country and hence are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.
3.3 From the statements of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean, as recorded on 07.08.2011 and 08.08.2011 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 it was revealed that he had visited India 6 times since last six months and had business deals with Shri Pravin Ajudiya. On this particular visit to India on 05.08.2011, he had carried approx. 6700.00 carats of rough diamonds with him in person and he did not have any KPC for the said 6700.00 carats of rough diamonds brought with him in person in his personal baggage which went undetected through x-ray machines and he had not declared rough diamonds before Customs Authorities at Airport Mumbai. He handed over said 6700.00 carats of rough diamonds to Shri Pravin on 06.08.2011 at around 7pm to 8 pm at Hotel Gateway in Room No. 517.
3.4 Statements the Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya and S/Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean (detenu), Leon Bukasa Kayamba (companion of Tshimanga Mukadi Jean), Bharatbhai Girdharbhai Savalia (locker owner), Smt.Kanchaben P. Ajudiya (wife of Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya) and other persons were recorded under the Customs, Act. It revealed that Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya deals regularly in the business of rough diamonds, which are brought into India without KP Certificate and that too in connivance of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean, Congo National who regularly visits India on tourist Visa and brings rough diamonds in baggage without declaration at the airport.
3.5 Shri Pravinbhai Ajudiya and Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean were arrested on 09.08.2011, under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 for committing offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. They were produced before the ld. CJM, Surat, on 09.08.2011 who remanded them to judicial custody. On 12.10.2011 they were granted bail. The DRI has filed a Criminal Application before the Ld. CJM Surat on 25.11.2011 for cancellation of the bail for violation of the conditions of the Bail order.
3.6 The International Certification Scheme for rough diamonds entitled : “ Kimberley Process Certification (KPC) Scheme” was adopted in a Ministerial Meeting held at Interlaken , Switzerland, on 5th November, 2002. India is signatory to the Interlaken Declaration. The Kimberley Process (KP) participants are states and regional economic integration organizations that are eligible to trade in rough diamonds. The Scheme has been evolved to deal with the issue of conflict diamonds which are basically rough diamonds whose trade is prohibited by the United Nations Security Council because, the proceeds of that trade are used by rebel movements and their allies to finance conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate Governments. KP Certificate is a forgery resistant document with a particular format, which identifies a shipment of rough diamonds as being in compliance with the requirement of the KPC.
3.7 The KP Certificate contains the title “Kimberley process Certificate”, country of origin, the certificate number, date of issuance date of expiry, issuing authority, the details of importer and exporter, carat weight/mass, value in US$, number of parcels in shipment, relevant HS code and validation of Certificate by the Exporting authority. Further, it may also have additional details such as quality, characteristics of rough diamonds in the shipment etc.
3.8 Notification No. 21/2002-07 dated 26.12.2002 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) read with Paragraph 2.2 of the Export and Import Policy 2004-09 and Circular No. 53/2003-Cus, dated 23.06.2003 provides that no import or export of rough diamonds shall be permitted unless the shipment parcel is accompanied by Kimberley Process (KP) Certificate. Further as per Section 7 of Foreign Trade (Development & regulation Act, 1992), the importer of rough diamonds into India, is to hold a valid Import Export Code Certificate issued by the D.G.F.T. as per Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation)Act, 1992. The goods for which Central Govt. make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise shall be deemed to be goods the import or export of which has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and all the provisions of the Act shall have effect accordingly.
3.9 As the said rough diamonds were smuggled into India by Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean in his personal baggage without any proper import documents and without declaring the same to the Customs Authority at Airport, the goods cannot be treated as personal bonafide baggage of the passengers as the same required compliance under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and conditions imposed in the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 and clearance only at designated place on production of required documents. The said goods were later found in the possession of Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya who also was unable to produce the licit documents including the Kimberley Process Certificate showing the licit import. Also Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya did not have requisite documents including the Kimberley Process Certificate, a statutory requirement. The clearance of such goods even otherwise through passenger mode was not in terms of law. It is also observed that out of the total seized rough diamonds weighing 10,510.60 carats, there is definite linkage between Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean and Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya in case of 6667.460 carats of rough diamonds, and in case of 3843.14 carats of rough diamonds, it can definitely be related to an illegal import indulged in by Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya as he had failed to produce any licit documents for the acquisition of the rough diamonds. The acts of omission and commission on their part have rendered the seized rough diamonds weighing 10,510.60 carats of Congo origin valued at Rs. 4,24,34,182/- liable to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d)m (l) and (m) of Customs Act, 1962.
3.10 In view of the above, Shri Pravinkumar Ratnabhai Ajudiya and Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean have committed offence punishable under the Customs Act, 1962, as have knowingly concerned themselves in fraudulent violation of prohibition imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with FTDR Act, 1992. In terms of Notification No. 21/2002-07 dated 26.12.2002 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DFT) read with Paragraph 2.2 of the Export and Import Policy 2004-09 and Circular No. 53/2003- Cus, dated 23.06.2003, no import or export of rough diamonds shall be permitted unless the shipment parcel is accompanied by Kimberley Process (KP) Certificate. Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean has been found to have smuggled goods which he knew and had reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as these rough diamonds have been imported without KPC and without proper declaration.
3.11 The activities of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean, COFEPOSA detenu are prejudicial activities as he smuggled these rough diamonds as passengers baggage without declaration being filed before the Customs in violation of Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 and also the rough diamonds were without accompanied with KPC thereby making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and thus amounting to smuggling in terms of provisions of Section 2(39) of Customs Act, 1962. This has confirmed by Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean the vide his statement dated 08.08.2011. This fact has also been confirmed by Shri Leon Bukasa Kayamba and also by Shri Bharatbhai Girdharbhai Savaliya in their respective statements dated 08.08.2011. Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean by brining the goods without fulfillment of legal requirements for import i.e. without declaring before the Customs and without KPC has shown the potentiality and propensity to smuggle, transport and deal with such rough diamonds in future since he is in the diamond business and makes frequent trips to India.
3.12 The activity of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean amounts to smuggling of goods as defined in Section 2 (39) of the Customs, 1962 and Section 2(e) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and their acts and omissions have rendered the said goods involved liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the well planned manner in which he has engaged himself in such prejudicial activities and his role therein, all of which reflect his high potentiality and propensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future. Hence, there is a need to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future by detention under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
3.13 Thereafter, based on the proposal of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, a detention order was issued on 02.05.2012 against Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean by the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), the specially empowered officer of the Central Government, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to prevent him from smuggling of goods in future. The detention order was executed on 28.05.2012 and he is presently lodged in Lajpore Central Jain, Surat, Gujarat.
4. Mr.A.M.Parkeh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the detention order is challenged on several grounds, however, he would assail the order only on the ground of delay in passing the detention order. To support his contention, he submitted that, though, the search of the premises where the petitioner had occupied room of the hotel on 7.8.2011, and after having found the articles i.e. diamond, and after making the seizure of the same on 8.8.2011, the authority has passed the detention order only on 2.5.2012, therefore, there is delay in passing the order.
4.1 Relying upon the affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr.Parekh submitted that, though, the chronology of events which are annexed along with the affidavit are not part of the affidavit, shows that the authority had taken unexplained time in passing the detention order. He has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 9.8.2011, and came to be enlarged on bail on 12.10.2011 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. The detention order came to be passed only in the month of May 2012. He has submitted that, the proposal which was sent by the sponsoring authority, and received by the detaining authority on 18.11.2011, and confirmed by the Screening Committee of the COFEPOSA Department on 7.12.2011, there was no need for the detaining authority to take such a long time of about five months in passing the detention order.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Parekh submitted that even, if, the date of approval by the Central Screening Committee is considered to be the starting period of proceeding with the action as provided under the COFEPOSA Act, the detaining authority has not taken any decision for almost five months, which would create doubts about the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in passing the order. He has submitted that the chronology of events itself suggest that the detaining authority as well as the sponsoring authority has consumed lot of time in exchanging some information about the detenu. Even no details are supplied or narrated in the affidavit that what documents or information were necessary in addition to the material which were already supplied by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority when the proposal was sent. He has submitted that, when the Central Screening Committee had approved the proposal of the sponsoring authority, of which, the minutes were prepared on 28.12.2011, the subsequent events which took place after the approval are not relevant with regard to the case of detenu.
4.3 In support of his submission, Mr.Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon following decisions:
i) T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala, as reported in AIR 1990 SC 225;
ii) Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India, as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 796;
iii) Adishwar Jain vs. Union of India, as reported in (2006) 4 RCR 931; and
iv) a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2012 (arising out of SLP [Criminal Appeal] No. 6985 of 2008 dated 9.8.2012).
4.4 He also relied upon the decision dated 27.9.2012 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9659 of 2012 by which it has been held that delay in passing the order would be fatal to the order of detention.
4.5 By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Parekh, submitted that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the Court has to decide whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitates to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. He has further submitted that, if the Court finds that there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and passing the detention order, the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily explained such delay after considering the explanation given by the authority for the same. He has submitted that the authority has to explain why the order of detention could not be passed on the basis of the material gathered by them especially when relying upon the same material the Screening Committee had approved the proposal forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority. In this case, relying upon the said decisions, learned advocate Mr.Parekh has submitted that the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred cases would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and, therefore, submitted that the detention order is required to be quashed and set aside solely on this ground.
5. On the other hand, learned Central Government Senior Counsel Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the respondents has submitted that , there is no delay on the part of the authority in passing the order of detention. He has submitted that the authority has explained the reasons for not passing the impugned detention order in the affidavit, even though the same was approved by the Central Screening Committee on 7.12.2011. He has submitted that, though, the Screening Committee had approved the proposal on 7.12.2011, the detaining authority has power to call for further material from the sponsoring authority to satisfy himself/herself about the sufficiency of the reasons made out by the sponsoring authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order. It was argued that list of the relied upon documents reflects that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the events which have been taken place after 7.12.2011 i.e. after the approval of the Screening Committee. He has submitted that the Screening Committee had approved the proposal made by the sponsoring authority about the detention of the detenu, minutes were signed and were communicated to the sponsoring authority only on 28.12.2011. Relying upon the chronology of events (which is not part of the affidavit), he has submitted that, some proceedings were going on with regard to the case on hand at Surat. Some show-cause-
notices were issued to the other witnesses and, therefore, there was sufficient reasons for passing the detention order only on 2.5.2012.
5.1 In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following decisions:
i) in the case of Ashok Narain vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in (1982) 2 SCC 437;
ii) in the case of Bharatkumar Manilal Parekh vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in 1992 (1) GLH, 541;
iii) in the case of Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., as reported in AIR 1982 SC 8; and
iv) in the case of Harish Anand v. Union of India, as reported - in 1996 (1) GLR 197.
5.2 Relying upon these judgments, Mr. Buch, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that, the effect of delay in passing the order would depend on the fact of a case which is required to be examined in the light of whether the grounds have become stale or the link of the detenue with prejudicial activities is snapped or not. He has further submitted that, the affidavits filed by the detaining authority on behalf of all the respondents along with the chronology of events, which were supplied to the detenu at the time of hearing of the case before the Advisory Board as well as before this Court, there is sufficient material to show that the detaining authority has taken time in passing the order of preventive detention only after considering all the necessary relevant documentary evidence against the detenu. The authority had applied its mind, and after having found sufficient material which would indicate that there are possibilities of detenue indulging in such activities prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, the detention order came to be passed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the memo of petition, detention order, documents supplied to the detenu along with the detention order as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The undisputed fact in the present case which I found are as under:
“(i) On 7.8.2011 search of Room No.510 occupied by detenu of Hotel Gateway, Surat was made, looking for smuggled rough diamonds.
(ii) On 7.8.2011 itself summons issued to the petitioner.
(iii) On 8.8.2011 panchnama for the examination, valuation and seizure of diamond was carried out by DRI Office, Surat (Sponsoring Authority).
(iv) On 8.8.2011 further statement of detenu was recorded.
(v) On 9.8.2011 the petitioner was arrested by the Customs Department.
(vi) On 4.10.2011 a criminal complaint came to be filed against the present petitioner.
(vii) On 12.10.2011 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat grants bail to the petitionerdetenu on certain terms and conditions.
(viii) On 18.11.2011 the detaining authority receives the proposal which was sent by DRI, Surat (Sponsoring Authority).
(ix) On 7.12.2011 meeting of the Screening Committee held which approved the proposal send by the Sponsoring Authority.
(x) On 28.12.2011 Minutes of the meeting dated 7.12.2011 qua approving the proposal send by Screening Committee were typed and members of the Committee put their signatures.
(xi) On 2.5.2012 the detention order is passed and the petitioner came to be detained on 8.5.2012.”
7. In the present case, the most important aspect is with regard to delay in passing the order. It is clear that the seizure was made on 8.8.2011, wherein, the articles were seized and valued, and panchnama was drawn on the same day. The petitioner-detenu was arrested on 9.8.2011 and was released on bail on 12.10.2011. Though the petitioner-detenu was released on bail in October, 2011, he came to be detained under the COFEPOSA Act only in the month of May 2012 i.e. after almost seven months. If the chronology of events are perused, it appears that, after the arrest of petitioner-detenu on 9.8.2011, several statements were recorded upto 12.10.2011 i.e. date on which the detenu was released by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. On 11.11.2011 summons were issued to the detenu to appear before the authority on 18.11.2011. It appears that when the detenu was called for recording of his evidence on 18.11.2011, the proposal was already sent to the detaining authority since the proposal was received by the authority on 18.11.2011. As per the departmental procedure, the Screening Committee decides the proposal of preventive detention submitted by the sponsoring authority. The Screening Committee cleared the proposal on 7.12.2011. So the detaining authority was aware about the clearance of the Screening Committee on 7.12.2011. Formality of preparing minutes and putting the signatures of the members of the committee might have taken place on 28.12.2011, the detaining authority could have proceeded with the proposal and ought to have passed the detention order. The events took place between 7.12.2011 to 2.5.2012 which are annexed with the affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow.
“07.12.2011 Screening Committee cleared the proposal of preventive detention.
28.12.2011 Minutes of the meeting of Screening Committee signed and the Sponsoring Authority was informed.
30.12.2011 Revision Application No.585 of 2011 filed by Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
06.01.2012 Issuance of showcausenotice dated 06.01.2012 to the detenu.
12.01.2012 – Affidavitinreply dated 12.1.2012 filed by SIO, DRI, Surat before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of RA No.585/2011 in which it was brought before the Hon'ble High Court that signature of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean on the RA was forged, name and address given were incorrect.
13.01.2012 Acknowledgments and Speed Post delivery reports dated 13.01.2012 in respect of delivery of SCN to Shri Pravin Ajudiya and Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean.
17.01.2012 – Order date 17.01.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of RA No.585/2011 filed by Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean as “this application stands disposed of as withdrawn”
20.01.2012 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad was asked to furnish the complete documents and requisite information in connection with the case.
12.04.2012 – Shri Pravinkumar R.Ajudiya filed reply to the showcausenotice dated 06.01.2012.
12.04.2012 – Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean filed reply to the showcausenotice dated 06.01.2012.
20.04.2012 – ADG (COFEPOSA) scrutinized the documents and processes the case and submitted the file to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA).
24.04.2012 Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) directed ADG (COFEPOSA) to get the inputs from the sponsoring authority.
30.04.2012 – ADG (COFEPOSA) submitted the file again to Join Secretary (COFEPOSA) after getting the requisite inputs from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
02.05.2012 – Corrigendum to showcausenotice dated 06.01.2012 issued.
02.05.2012 – Detention order issued under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 for detention of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean and Shri Pravinkumar R.Ajudiya by Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) after recording her subjective satisfaction.
08.05.2012 Execution of COFEPOSA order dated 02.05.2012 by the arrest of Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean by Surat Police.
10.05.2012 – Service of grounds of detention and replied upon documents to COFEPOSA order dated 02.05.2012 to Shri Tshimanga Mukadi Jean at Surat District Jail, Lajpore, Surat.”
8. If the time consumed by the detaining authority is perused, from the above-referred events, there is no explanation by the authority which would satisfy the Court that there was sufficient reason for the detaining authority in passing the detention order after about five months from the date of approval by the Screening Committee. The detaining authority had done nothing from 28.12.2011 to 12.4.2012. There is no explanation why the detaining authority did not take any decision and ignored the need of the day to prevent a foreign national from indulging in the activity contrary to the provisions of Customs Act. The authority, though, has tried to explain the delay in para 5.14 and 5.21 of the affidavit-in-
reply, I am of the opinion that there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of the detaining authority why she has not taken any decision after 7.12.2011 i.e. from the date of approval by the Screening Committee.
9. Now, considering the above factual aspects, if the judgments relied upon by Mr.Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioner is perused, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that, the delay in passing the detention order itself would not vitiate the detention order if the delay is sufficiently and satisfactorily explained by the authority concerned, and in absence of the same, such delay would throw doubts about necessity for detaining the person from indulging in such illegal activities. In the case of T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paras 11 and 12 as under:
“11. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarized thus : The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.
12. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenue, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detune with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.”
In the case of Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) after considering the time gap an order of preventive detention, the Apex Court has held that since the delay caused in issuing the order of detention has not been explained, the detention order requires to be quashed and the Apex Court has also relied upon the judgment in the case of T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of
Kerala, (supra) while deciding the case of Rajinder Arora.
In the case of Adishwar Jain vs. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court has held in para-9 as under:
“9. Indisputably, delay to some extent stands explained. But, we fail to understand as to why despite the fact that the proposal for detention was made on 2.12.2004, the order of detention was passed after four months. We must also notice that in the meantime on 20.12.2004, the authorities of the DRI had clearly stated that transactions after 11.10.2003 were not under scrutiny stating:
“ In our letter mentioned above, your office was requested not to issue the DEPB scripts to M/s Girnar Impex Limited and M/s Siri Amar Exports, only in respect of the pending application, if any, filed by these parties upto the date of action i.e. 11.10.2003 as the past exports were under scrutiny being doubtful as per the intelligence received in this office. This office never intended to stop the export incentives occurring to the parties, after the date of action i.e. 11.10.2003. In the civil, your office letter No. B.L.2/Misc. Am-2003/Ldh dated 17.5.2004 is being referred, which is not received in this office. You are, therefore, requested to supply photocopy of the said letter to the bearer of this letter as this letter is required for filing reply to the Hon'ble Court.”
10. Mr. Buch, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case Ashok Narain vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the matter was examined thoroughly at various levels and the detaining authority applied his mind fully and satisfactorily to the question whether the petitioner should be detained under the COFEPOSA or not and after having been satisfied with the time taken by the authority in passing the detention order, the same was upheld by the Apex Court.
Another judgment in the case of Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Apex Court held that delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases, delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority.
Another decision cited by Mr. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondent is in the case of Bharat kumar Manilal Parekh vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the principle laid down in the case of Hemalata vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and held that the delay itself would not vitiate the detention order or would not mean that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was not genuine. However, it has been further held that it would depend upon the facts of each case and whether the grounds alleged against the detenue are stale or illusory or whether because of delay, the link of the petitioner in indulging in illegal activities is snapped.
Relying upon the decision on Hemalata vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), learned Advocate Mr. Buch for the respondents has stated that in the said case, the detention order came to be passed after six months from the date of arrest of the detenue and the Apex Court was satisfied with the explanation made by the Authority that 11 statements of the detenue were recorded during that period and, therefore, the delay in passing the detention order after six months was treated as justifiable delay.
11. Considering overall aspects of the matter and affidavit filed by the authority as well as perusing the chronology of events, I am of the opinion that there is no satisfactory explanation or reason for passing the detention order after a period of long gap between the approval of proposal and passing the detention order.
12. For the reasons aforementioned, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention bearing F.No.673/01/2012-Cus.VIII dated 2.5.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 – Joint Secretary to the Government of India is quashed and set aside. The detenue-Tshimanga Mukadi Jean is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
( A.J. DESAI, J. ) syed/