Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c) That even before the petitioner came out on bail, the Import Export Code of the subject four firms which are alleged to be operated/controlled / used by the petitioner, were placed in Denied Entity List (Black List) vide Orders dated 21.12.2018 and 24.12.2018. Thus, the petitioner was already effectively prevented from acting in any prejudicial manner. The said vital fact exhibits lack of any genuine and real 'necessity' to again apprehend and detain him, now for alleged preventive purpose.

d) That if the orders dated 21.12.2018 and 24.12.2018 obtained by the respondent No.3 from the office of DGFT showing the fact of placing of all the subject firms in the Denied Entity List (Black List) on 21.12.2018 and 24.12.2018 which had foreclosed any future possibility of the petitioner indulging in any of the alleged prejudicial activities, were not placed before the respondent No.2; it would axiomatic that non-placement of such vital documents, having a significant and direct bearing on the subjective satisfaction, was mala fide, illegal and erroneous on the part of the Sponsoring Authority. Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding „necessity to detain‟ is vitiated for non-application of mind on the relevant and vital documents having a significant and direct bearing on the subjective satisfaction.