Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 11 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Sabir Ahmed vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 April, 1980
In Sabir Ahmed v. Union of India (4) it has been held : "TheEpower under section Ii of the Cofeposa is a supervisory. This power may be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own sources including the report sent by the State Government under section 3(2) which docs not require that the representation made by the detenu, if any, should also be sent along with the report. The power under section Ii is also exercisable on receipt of a petition or representation from the detenu for revocation of the detention. Such a representation may simply repeat the same allegations, statements of facts and arguments which wee contained in the representation made to the detaining authority."
Vijaya Kumar Gujral vs Union Of India And Others on 27 May, 1987
(26) In Vijaya Kumar Gujral v. Union of India and others, 1988 Criminal Law Journal p. 1198,(5) a Division Bench of this court has also held that the representation of the detenu cannot be considered by the same officer who made the order even though he may apart from empowerment under section 3 be also empowered to act as the Central Government under section 11 of the Cofeposa under the Business Rules of the Government. This, in fact. is the ratio arrived at in the aforesaid case, though for reasons different than those we are relying upon. In our view, due compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) warrants that even if the representation is considered by an officer functioning as Central Government by virtue of delegation of powers under the Business Rules he must be. higher in rank and in any case other than the one who made the order of detention as an office specially empowered under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The National Security Act, 1980
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary Government ... on 12 April, 1985
(14) Mr. Chawla urges that the incriminating facts are the recovery and failure to account for the same and one does not know how much of it has gone into formation of the subjective satisfaction. In our view, the infirmity pointed out is neither material nor serious and would not vitiate the detention. Assuming, though riot granting, it to be a valid argument there still is. the fact of recovery of gold from the detenu which by itself is a valid and relevant material for the formation of subjective satisfaction. See Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others, . (1)
(15) The last and the final contention of the learned counsel for the detenu is that he made a representation to the detaining authority on 25th of August 1988 as appears at page 28 of the writ petition and on 9th of September 1988 this representation was considered and rejected by the officer empowered under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. It is submitted (i) that the representation has been rejected by the same officer specially empowered under section 3(1) of the Cofeposa which is bad in law as it ought to have been dealt with by the Central Government which in law is the detaining authority, (ii) that the power conferred under section Ii of the Cofeposa is not correctable to the obligation of the appropriate government to consider the representation made under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, (iii) even on facts of this case while considering the representation Shri K. L. Verma has acted as an officer specially empowered under section 3(1) of the Cofeposa and not as a Central Government empowered under the Transaction of Business Rules. Fourth, even after he (Joint Secretary) has considered the representation in the capacity of the Central Government the same individual could not have acted as such while considering the representation of the detenu.
Section 110 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra & Another vs Smt. Sushila Mafatlal Shah & Others on 7 September, 1988
(23) Next it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the officer specially empowered in this case was additionally also empowered to act as the Central Government under the instrument F. No. 685/14/84-Cus Viii Government of India, Ministry of Finance to the Department of Revenue dated 14-9-1984 under which the officer has also been empowered to act as the Central Government under section Ii of the Cofeposa and that this empowerment is under Rule 3 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules. We may at once point out that this argument is unsustainable and the answer to it is again provided by the case of Sushila Mafatlal (supra) wherein it is clearly stated that this would make no difference and would not make the officer the detaining authority. Moreover, there are two obstacles which, in our view stand in the way of this contention. In the first place section 11 of the Act confers upon the Government the power to revoke and the power to make a fresh detention order on the same ground. It does not cast any duty upon the appropriate government. The duty to consider the representation by the detaining authority expeditiously is cast upon it by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be urged that by virtue of delegation of powers under section Ii of the Act, this duty to consider the representation by the detaining authority also stands delegated. This cannot be so even by implication.
1