Mohd.Nashruddin vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held in favour of the detenu on both issues. Firstly, it found that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Central Government in deciding the statutory representation filed by the detenu, which is a violation of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Court cited established legal principles regarding the timely consideration of representations. Secondly, the Court held that the impugned order of detention was vitiated because the grounds stated therein were identical to the grounds taken in an entirely different case, specifically the detention order in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad. The Court concluded that this 'copy-paste job' by the Detaining Authority demonstrated a clear non-application of mind. Consequently, the detention order was set aside and quashed, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Nashruddin, a non-resident Indian based in UAE and engaged in gold trading, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a detention order dated 21.01.2020 under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The detention stemmed from an incident where his employee, Amit Pal Singh, was intercepted at Delhi airport on 24.04.2019 with unsold gold jewellery that had been exported for an exhibition in UAE. The petitioner's company, IMNPL, a recognized export house, had exported gold jewellery manufactured from domestic stock for an exhibition, with the understanding that unsold items could be re-imported duty-free within 60 days. The co-detenu, Amit Pal Singh, had declared the returned goods and obtained Customs clearance, but was subsequently intercepted by DRI officers on suspicion of illegally importing gold jewellery to evade customs duty. The petitioner also arrived on the same flight but was searched separately with no objectionable items found.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention order is vitiated due to inordinate and unexplained delay in the consideration of the detenu's statutory representation by the Central Government, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the detention order is vitiated because its grounds were mechanically lifted from the grounds of an entirely different case, demonstrating a non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that there was a significant and unexplained delay in the consideration of his representation by the Central Government, which is a constitutional right and any such delay is fatal to the detention. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were identical to those in a previous case (Dimple Happy Dhakad), indicating a mechanical application of mind by the Detaining Authority and thus vitiating the detention order. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment notes that it was not considered necessary to examine the authorities relied upon by the respondents on the issue of delay in considering the representation, implying that the petitioner's argument on this point was accepted or the respondents did not effectively counter it.