UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUNEESH SUNEJA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 30-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-~-
-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MUNEESH SUNEJA 
JANUARY 30, 200I 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1973--Section 3(1)-Detention order-Pre-detention stage-
l11te1ference by Court-Scope of-Held, interference of Court i11 pre-detention 
cases is not called for except in the exceptional circumstances set forth by C 
Supreme Court-Delay in passing the order of detention or execution of the 
same are 11ot such grounds which could be made the basis for quashing the 
order of detention at a pre detention stage-Such delay not fatal except 
where the same stands un-explained. 
Practice & Procedure: 
Petition--Withdrawal of-Fresh petition before a different Court-Non-
disclosure of the fact of earlier petition-Effect of-Held, such non-disclosure 
fatal to the petition. 
Residential premises of the respondent were searched by the officials 
of the Enforcement Directorate leading to the recovery of Indian currency of 
Rs. 3 lakhs, 8 gold biscuits of 110 tolas and Deustche marks 5300. He was 
arrested and thereafter released on bail after about two months. Subsequently, 
D 
E 
an order of detention was passed under Section 3(1 )of the Conservation of 
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 directing F 
the detention of the respondent. 
The validity of the said detention order was challenged in High Court 
which was, however, withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if 
need be. Thereafter, a petition was filed before another High Court but the G 
fact of filing of a petition earlier in a different High Court was not disclosed. 
The said petition was allowed by the High Court holding that there had been 
delay in making the order of detention and that after making the order of 
detention no effective steps had been taken to execute the same except to 
make a vague allegation that the respondent was absconding. Hence the 
present appeals. 
683 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R. 
On behalf of Union of India, it was contended that the High Court could 
not interfere at pre-detention stage in the light of the decision of Supreme 
Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. 
Atka Subhash Gadia & Anr., (1992( Supp. I SCC 496, which made it clear 
that the courts should not interfere at the pre-detention stage except in 
exceptional circumstances detailed therein. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. This Court has been categorical that in matters of pre-
detention cases interference of court is not called for except in the 
circumstances set forth in the cases of Additional Secretary to the 
Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr., 11992( 
Supp. I SCC 496 and Sayed Thaer Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the 
Government of India & Ors., 120001 8 SCC 630. If this aspect is borne in 
mind, the High Court could not have quashed the order of detention either on 
the ground of delay in passing the impugned order or delay in executing the 
said order. For mere delay either in passing the order or execution thereof is 
not fatal except where the same stands un-explained. In the given 
circumstances of the case and if there are good reasons for delay in passing 
the order or in not giving effect to it, the same could be explained and those 
are not such grounds which could be made the basis of quashing the order of 
detention at a pre-detention stage. The order of detention having been made 
long time ago and the same not having been effected till today, it is certainly 
necessary for the authorities concerned in the Government to apply mind as 
to whether detention of the respondent is still necessary or not and take 
appropriate steps either in giving effect to the order of detention or to revoke 
the same. (687-G-H; 688-A-D( 
Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka 
Subhash Gadia & Anr., 119921 Supp. I SCC 496 and Sayed Thaer Bawamiya 
v. Join/ Secretary lo the Government of India & Ors., 120001 8 sec 630, 
followed. 
Go/am Hussain alias Gama v. The Commissioner of Police, Ca/cul/a & 
Ors., (199414 SCC 530; TA. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kera/a & Ors., (19891 
4 SCC 741 and Ahamed Mohaideen Zabbar v. State ofT. N. & Ors., (199914 
sec 417, cited. 
2. When the respondent had filed a writ petition in a High Court and 
H that writ petition was subsequently withdrawn, this fact should have been 
~ 
~
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.