SMT. ASHA KESHAVRAO BHOSALE versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 04-10-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
252 
SMT. ASHA KESHAVRAO BHOSAI.E 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
OCTOBER 4, 1985 
(R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATII MISRA, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities·Act 1974, sections 3(1) and 9. 
Detenu 
assailing 
order 
of 
detention 
Delay 
in 
consideration of representation by Government -
Advisory lloard 
rejecting request of detenu for representation by counsel or 
non-lawyer friend -
Detention order 
-
Whether liable to be 
quashed -
Court not to test adequacy of material on which 
satisfaction of detaining authority is based. 
The petitioner's husballd waa cletaiDecl by an order dated 
November 20, 1984 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of 
Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggllng Activities Act, 1974 
on the ground, that contraband articlea alleged to be worth more 
than 1/ 2 er ore of rupees had been received on the sea-shore at 
the back of Raj Bhavan, Bombay, that access to this place was 
only through the Raj Bhavan, and that he had asked an employee of 
the Raj Bhavan compound for the purpose of transporting the 
contraband articles. 
The petitioner in her writ petition to this Court assailed 
the order of detention as alao the 1ubaequent declaration dated 
December 12, 1984 under section 9 of the Act. Earlier the 
petitioner had challenged the detention order by filing s writ 
petition before the High Court but the same waa dilllllissed. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that : 
(1) the petitioner made a representation against the detention of 
her husband on November 24, 1984 and it was received in the 
Secretariat of the Chief llinister on November 28, 1984 and that 
it was not disposed of till January 28, 1985 and that this delay 
in disposal vitiated the detention and the detenu became entitled 
to be set at liberty by the quashing of the order. (2) The order 
of detention is liable to be set aside inasmuch aa it has been 
made without proper application of mind. The link between the 
ASHA KESHAVRAO BHOSALE v. U.O.I. 
253 
alleged transaction of transporting the contraband materials and 
A 
the detenu is said to have been established by a statement made 
by an employee of Raj Bhavan to the effect that the detenu had 
asked him to allow the truck to enter into the Raj Bhavan 
premises. 
(3) 
The 
grounds of ·detention disclose that the 
detaining authority had relied upon the contact between the 
detenu and another person, and the source of information for 
B 
ascertaining 
the 
existenee 
of 
this 
relationship · was 
as 
intelligence report, and that the same hsd not been furnished to 
the detenu. (4) The detenu hsd been prejudiced in the hearing by 
the Advisory Board as his request for representation by counsel 
or by a non-lawyer friend hsd not been entertained by the Board. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
Bl!U>: 1. The petitioner hsd made a representation and the 
same was received in the office of the Chief Minister on November 
28, 1984 and orders were passed thereon on January 28, 1985. 
c 
There was also another representation made on behalf of the 
D 
detenu by 
the Khed 
Taluka llaratha Seva 
Sangh, 
and 
this 
representation was a detailed one and this was received in the 
Secretariat on November 29, 1984 and finally 
disposed of on 
December 
12, 
1984. 
The 
High 
Court 
looked 
into 
the 
two 
· representations one made by the Sangh and the other by the 
petitioner and having regard to the manner in which the Sangh' s 
E 
representation hsd been disposed of, held that the representation 
made by the petitioner was a second one on the same score, and 
delay in disposing of that representation did not really 
prejudice the detenu 's case. The petitioner is not entitled 
therefore to make any submission dn the score of delay in 
disposal of the representation. (258 B-F] 
· 
2, Satisfaction under the law is subjective and it is not 
for the court to test the adequacy of the material on which 
satisfaction is reached. It was up to the detaining authority in 
the instant case, to accept the statement made by the employee of 
Raj Bhavan about the link between the detenu and the receipt of 
F 
the contraband articles and the bundle of facts relating thereto. 
G 
(259 F] 
3. In the instant case, no privilege against disclosure of 
source as well as contents of the information was claimed. 
Adequate material had been disclosed and no prejudice appears to 
have 
been 
caused 
for 
want 
of 
further 
disclosure of 
the 
inte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.