Aman Ahmed Naqvi vs Union Of India And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 611 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) This criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction for immediate release of the petitioner and setting aside the detention order dated 30.10.90 passed by the Administrator, Delhi Administration under Section 3(1) and the Declaration dated 20.11.90 passed by Special Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue,New Delhi, under Section 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act.

(2) It may not be necessary to give all the different grounds challenging the impugned orders. The petitioner filed Cr. M. 261/91 taking up another ground for challenging the detention order and during the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner relies only on that ground. That ground is in para 16 of the writ petition which is as follows, "On the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you have the inclination and propensity in the matter of indulging in smuggling activities in an organized and clandestine manner and unless prevented you are likely to indulge in the smuggling activities in the similar manner or otherwise, in future, when released on bail," In reply to this averment, respondent No. 2 i.e. the Administrator of Delhi states that this para does not require any reply.

(3) I have beard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties.Learned Counsel for the State admits that this point has been thrashed in a number of authorities and detention orders wherein the words "or otherwise have been used. have been quashed. My attention has been drawn to the case of Sanjeev Khanna v.Union of India and Others in Crl. W. No. 430 of 1990wherein it was held on the basis of the case of Avtar Chand Kehar v. U.O.I, and Others 1989 (3) Delhi Lawyer (DB) 374, "It was not possible for the petitioner to know the state of mind of the detaining Authority that in spite of his being prevented from going abroad, he would smuggle goods otherwise as well."Therefore, the use of the words, 'or otherwise' in the grounds of detention were held to be too vague for the petitioner to understand their scope and intent making it impossible for him to mike any effective representation against hisdetention. In the present case also the detaining Authority has not clarified asto why it has used the words 'or otherwise' in the grounds of detention. I am,therefore, of the view that on this ground alone it can be said that the petitioner has been prevented from making an effective representation to the detaining authority on which account the detention order stands vitiated.

(4) Therefore, the impugned detention order as well as the declaration are hereby set aside. The petitioner will be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case or proceedings.