Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for the Central Government, has described this with reference to "coastal" waters instead of "customs waters" as merely a typographical error which does not affect the order. According to Mr. Karmali learned advocate for the petitioner, an error of this nature indicates non-application of mind by the Central Government. In the first place, it is not clear whether this is merely a typographical error. Assuming however, that it is so, does it necessarily vitiate the order of detention ?

20. Mr. Karmali drew our attention to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th June 1988 in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 246 of 1988, Mackie Francis Pereira v. State of Maharashtra, decided by Pendse and Tipnis JJ. In that case, in the grounds of detention, the date of the raid which was carried out was wrongly mentioned as 13th September 1987 instead of 23rd September 1987. The court held that as the wrong date was mentioned the detenu was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of making any effective representation. Although it was urged that it was a typographical error, the court held that if it was a typographical error it would amount to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. In that case the date of the raid was very material and it was an incident in respect of which the detenu was entitled to make a representation. An error of this nature would also indicate non-application of mind. In the present case however, there was no such error in the grounds of detention. The error is in the declaration u/S. 9(1) when it describes the area highly vulnerable to smuggling. The location of smuggling activities is clearly set out in the grounds of detention. The right of the detenu to make a representation is not affected in any way by this typographical error in the declaration. Hence the ratio of the Division Bench has no application here.