Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 457 (MAD)

Liyakat Ali v. K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance

1988-11-22

DAVID ANNOUSSAMY, JANARTHANAM

body1988
Judgment : David Annoussamy, J. This is a petition under Art.226 of theConstitution by (he detenu for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashingthe order of detention passed against him and setting him at liberty. 2. The petitioner is detained as per the order of the CentralGovernment i.e. Joint Secretary to the Government of India passed underSec.3(1) of the Conversion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of SmugglingActivities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from acting in any mannerprejudicial to the argumentation of foreign exchange. 3. The main ground urged before us is that the petitioner in his representation dated 30.3.1988 wanted to be enlightened as to what was the section of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which he was found to haveviolated. The order rejecting his representation viz., order dated26.4.1988 does not give any reply to his query. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the remand report, which was, one of the documents furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention mentioned the section as Sec.9(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the documents annexed to the grounds of detention ran into two hundred pages and that he cannot be expected to wade through all the pages to find out the essential detail. He further added that this document is the one filed by the Enforcement Officer and that the detenu should be made aware of the opinion of the detaining authority on what was the section which the petitioner would have violated. 6. There is some force in the contention put forth by the Learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, the detention order would not be made invalid for the mere absence of mention of the section. But, when the detenu hasmade a specific request to have that section to be made known to him, that request should have been acceded to, and the failure to do so vitiates the order. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order of detention is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forth with ,unless required otherwise.