Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The legislative intendment behind COFEPOSA, as per its Preamble, is avowedly to provide for preventive detention in certain cases for the purposes of conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities, which were seen to have increased manifold, thereby having a deleterious effect on the national economy as well as security of the State. Two years thereafter, in 1976, SAFEMA was found to be necessary in order to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators with a view to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulation of their ill-gotten gains, as mentioned in the Preamble of that Act itself. It seems to us that whereas the accent is on personal liberty so far as COFEPOSA is concerned, the emphasis is on ill-gotten gains invested in properties so far as SAFEMA is concerned. The grounds on which the detention orders can be challenged in the context of SAFEMA proceedings are to be found fundamentally in Section 3 of COFEPOSA, namely that the Central or State Governments may with a view to prevent any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange, or with a view to prevent any person from smuggling goods, or abetting the smuggling of goods, or engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods, make an order directing that such person be detained. It is in this backdrop that the arguments of Mr. Bagai and Ms. Bhayana have to be cogitated upon. Mr. Bagai has reiterated the argument contained in the writ petition to the effect that the Detaining Authority did not formulate the grounds of detention himself, since it is his subjective satisfaction alone on which such orders are predicated. Our attention has been drawn to the observations contained in Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India wherein their Lordships have observed that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation, constitutional and administrative, to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only. Annexure P-1(Colly) is the Order and grounds of detention of Late Roshan Lal under MISA. The impugned Order dated 19.12.1974, passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, is accompanied by the grounds of detention. A perusal thereof will dispel any doubt that the decision to detain Late Roshan Lal was neither arbitrary nor an automatism. The Writ Court must be ever vigilant against substituting its own views and assessment for that of the appropriate authority. As has been opined in Union of India v. Arvind Shergill , "Section 3 clearly indicates that the responsibility for making detention order rests upon the detaining authority who alone is entrusted with the duty in that regard and it will be a serious derogation from the responsibility if the court substitutes its judgment to the satisfaction of that authority on an investigation undertaking regarding sufficiency of the materials on which such satisfaction was grounded". We find no merit whatsoever in this attempt to assail the detention orders in the context of the SAFEMA proceedings.