LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus PK. SHAMSUDEEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU A ----( v. PK. SHAMSUDEEN JULY 21, 1992 [T.K. THOMMEN AND S;P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] B I Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Ac- --( tivities Act, 1974: Section 3--Preventive detentio~etention order-Interference by High c Court on ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in execution of-lus- - tification of. An order of detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed by the appellant-State against the respondent's uncle. The detenu D filed a .writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the detention order. The High Court passed an order granting temporary injuction restraining the appellant from detaining the detenu but upon considera- , tion of the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant vacated the order of injunction. Thereafter the respondent, a nephew of the detenu, filed a writ E -( petition before the High Court at Madras, which allowed the same on the ground that there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in the implementation of the detention order. In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant-State, it was contended that the High Court was not justified in exercising its F extraordinary powers to restrain the execution of the detention order • . L •On behalf of the respondent, it was contende~ that between the date of passing the order and the filing of the writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta, the detenu had regularly appeared before the concerned G Magistrate and there was no satisfactory explanation for the failure of the authorities to detain him under the detention order and that the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention had been \ snapped by the undue and unreasonable delay. Allowing the appeal, this Court H 587 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.CR. A HELD: The delay in the execution or the detention order passed against the detenu, upon which the High Court at Madras rounded the y relief it gave, had already taken place by tbe date writ petition was filed by the detenu at Calcutta. That the dela)' had taken place was, obviously, .known to the detenu, who himself was the writ petitiOner in Calcutta. B Nonetheless, the point of delay was not taken in Calcutta. It was taken only after the High Court at Calcutta had vacated the interim injuction ' restraining the appellant from executing the detention order when the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court at Madras sub- sequently. That a writ petition had been filed in Calcutta challenging the detention order was mentioned, both in the writ petition at Madras and in c the reply filed thereto. In these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in exercising its discretion to issue the high prerogative writ of mandamus to direct the appellant to forbear from executing the detention - order passed by it.(591 8-DJ D The Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Atka Subhash Gadia & Ors., J.T. (1991) 1 S.C. 549, distinguished. . NX Bapna v. Union of India, (1992) 60 E.L.T. 13 S.C. and K.P.M. Bashee~_,'f!., State _of Kamataka & Anr. etc., [1992) 2 SCC 295, referred to. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 392of1~ '" \-- From' the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.92 of the Madras High ( Court in W.P. No. 9587 of 1991. ;......... F V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.V. Venkataraman, K.V. Viswanathan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant. B.Kumar and K.K. Mani for the Respondent. -~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered ·by G BHARUCHA, J. Special leave to appeal granted. This is an appeal against the judgment and order ofa Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing. a writ of mandamus ~ against the present appellant directing it to forbear from implementing the H order of detention issued by it against one Sheik Ahamed Hajee, son of -( STATE v. SHAMSUDEEN [BHARUCHA, J.] 589 Mammoo, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange A and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). The detention order was issued on 8th March, 1988. On 5th April 1989 the detenu filed a writ TJetition in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (being Writ Petition No.C.0.4202/W/89) impugning the detention order. The detenu stated therein that he was a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.