Holding

The High Court was not justified in restraining the execution of the detention order, as the delay did not fall within the limited categories for pre‑execution interference.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu issued a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 against Sheik Ahamed Hajee on 8 March 1988. The detenu challenged the order in the Calcutta High Court on 5 April 1989, obtaining an interim injunction that was later vacated on 12 April 1991. The detenu's nephew then filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court on 10 July 1991, which was allowed on the ground that there had been an inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the detention order. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court had no authority to intervene before execution except in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the delay had already occurred before the Madras petition and did not fall within the narrow categories permitting pre‑execution judicial interference, and therefore the High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus. The appeal was allowed and the Madras High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its extraordinary powers to restrain execution of a COFEPOSA detention order on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay.
Whether the delay in execution, which had occurred before the writ petition in Madras, falls within the limited grounds for pre‑execution judicial review under COFEPOSA jurisprudence.

Legislation cited

Subjects

COFEPOSApreventive detentionwrit of mandamusdelay in executionpre‑execution judicial reviewHigh CourtSupreme Courtinordinate delay

Judgment

STATE OF TAMIL NADU A
----( v.
PK. SHAMSUDEEN
JULY 21, 1992

[T.K. THOMMEN AND S;P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] B
I

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
--( tivities Act, 1974:

Section 3--Preventive detentio~etention order-Interference by High c
Court on ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in execution of-lus-

- tification of.

An order of detention under the provisions of the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was
passed by the appellant-State against the respondent's uncle. The detenu D
filed a .writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the detention
order. The High Court passed an order granting temporary injuction
restraining the appellant from detaining the detenu but upon considera-
, tion of the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant vacated the order of
injunction. Thereafter the respondent, a nephew of the detenu, filed a writ E
petition before the High Court at Madras, which allowed the same on the
-(
ground that there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in the
implementation of the detention order.

In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant-State, it
was contended that the High Court was not justified in exercising its F
extraordinary powers to restrain the execution of the detention order•
.L
•On behalf of the respondent, it was contende~ that between the date
of passing the order and the filing of the writ petition before the High
Court at Calcutta, the detenu had regularly appeared before the concerned
Magistrate and there was no satisfactory explanation for the failure of the
G
authorities to detain him under the detention order and that the live and
proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention had been
\ snapped by the undue and unreasonable delay.

Allowing the appeal, this Court H
587
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.CR.

A HELD: The delay in the execution or the detention order passed
against the detenu, upon which the High Court at Madras rounded the y
relief it gave, had already taken place by tbe date writ petition was filed by
the detenu at Calcutta. That the dela)' had taken place was, obviously,
.known to the detenu, who himself was the writ petitiOner in Calcutta.
Nonetheless, the point of delay was not taken in Calcutta. It was taken only
B after the High Court at Calcutta had vacated the interim injuction
'
restraining the appellant from executing the detention order when the writ
petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court at Madras sub-
sequently. That a writ petition had been filed in Calcutta challenging the
detention order was mentioned, both in the writ petition at Madras and in
c the reply filed thereto. In these circumstances, the High Court was not
justified in exercising its discretion to issue the high prerogative writ of
mandamus to direct the appellant to forbear from executing the detention
order passed by it.(591 8-DJ
-
The Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt.
D Atka Subhash Gadia & Ors., J.T. (1991) 1 S.C. 549, distinguished. .

NX Bapna v. Union of India, (1992) 60 E.L.T. 13 S.C. and K.P.M.
Bashee~_,'f!., State _of Kamataka & Anr. etc.,
[1992) 2 SCC 295, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
E
392of1~ '"
\--
(
From' the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.92 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 9587 of 1991.
;.........
F V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.V. Venkataraman, K.V.
Viswanathan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.

B.Kumar and K.K. Mani for the Respondent. -~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered ·by
G
BHARUCHA, J. Special leave to appeal granted.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order ofa Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing. a writ of mandamus ~
against the present appellant directing it to forbear from implementing the
H order of detention issued by it against one Sheik Ahamed Hajee, son of
STATE v. SHAMSUDEEN [BHARUCHA, J.] 589

Mammoo, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange A
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to
as 'COFEPOSA').

The detention order was issued on 8th March, 1988. On 5th April
1989 the detenu filed a writ TJetition in the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta (being Writ Petition No.C.0.4202/W/89) impugning the detention
B
order. The detenu stated therein that he was a resident of Aberdeen Bazar,
Port Blair, and carried on business therefrom. The writ petition was
admitted and the present appellant was restrained from detaining the
detenu for a period of two weeks. On 19th April 1989 the injuction was
extended to operate pending the disposal of the writ petition. On 12th c
April 1991, upon consideration of the counter-affidavit filed by the present
appellant, the order of injuction was vacated. Thereupon, on 10th Jul~
1991, the present writ petition was filed in Madras by the respondent to
this appeal, who is a nephew of the detenu. By the judgment and order
under appeal the writ petition was allowed upon the ground that there had D
been inordinate and unexplained delay in the implementation of the deten-
tion order. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that an advocate of Coim-
batore had sworn an affidavit on 12th November, 1991 wherein, as counsel
for the . detenu, he stated that the detenu had appeared before the
-(
Magistrate's Court in the related criminal proceedings taken against him E
under the Customs Act on various dates between 4th December 1987 and
3rd August 1988, which statements were, admittedly, correct.

Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on
behalf of the present appellant, drew our attention to the judgment of this
F
Court in The Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt.
Alka Subhash Gadia & Ors;, J.T. (1991) 1 S.C. 549. This Court held thus:-

"It is not correct to say that the courts have no power to
entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its
execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have G
used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, although
such cases have been few and the grounds on which the courts
have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are neces-
sarily very limited in scope and number, viz., where the courts
are prima facie satisfied (i) that the impugned .order is not H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been
passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong
person (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose, (iv) that it is
passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds or (v) that
the a~thority which passed it had no authority to do so. The
refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary powers of
B judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to
their execution on any other ground does not amount to the
abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the
proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion
of the law in question".
c
In Mr. Reddy's subll)issio~, the case of the detenu did not fall within
the limited scope set out in the aforesaid judgment and the High Court
was, therefore, not justified in exercising its extraordinary powers to
restrain the execution of the detention order. .

D Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the present respondent, drew our
attention to the judgment of this Court in N.K Bapna v. Union of India,
(1992) 60 E.L.T. 13 S.C. This Court there affirmed the judgment in the
case of Atka Subhash Gadia aforementioned.

Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Kumar upon the delay in the
....
E execution of the detention order between 8th March 1988, when it was
issued, and 5th April 1989, whe.11 the Calcutta High Court restrained its
execution by an interim order. It was submitted that during this period the
detenu had regularly appeared before the concerned Magistrate at Coim-
batore and there was no satisfactory explanation for the failure of the
-
F authorities to detain him under the detention order. Reliance was placed
upon this Court's Judgment in K.P.M. Basheer v. State of Kamataka & Anr.
etc., [1992] 2 SCC 295 and it was submitted that the live and proximate link
between the grounds and purpose of detention had been snapped by the
undue and unreasonable delay. The delay in detention in KP.M. Basheer's
.G case was of 5 months and 11 days but, it is important to note, detention
had been effected before the writ petition was filed.

Clearly, the present case does not fall within the parameters outlined
in the case of Atka Subhash Gadia justifying interference with the detention
order at the pre-detention stage. There is no dispute that the detention
H order was passed under COFEPOSA, nor that it was sought to be executed
STATE v. SHAMSUDEEN [BHARUCHA, J.] 591

against the right ·person, nor that it had been passed for a wrong purpose, A
nor that it had been passed on vague, extraneous or irrelevant grounds, nOli
that the authority which had passed it had no authority to do so.

It is relevant also to note thatthe writ petition in Calcutta was filed
on 5th April 1989. The delay in the execution of the detention order upon
which the Madras High Court founded the relief it gave had already taken B
place by 5th April 1989. That the delay had taken placed was, obviously;
known to the. detenu who himself was the writ petitioner in Calcutta:.
Nonetheless, the point of delay was not taken in Calcutta. It was taken only
after the Calcutta High Court had on 12th April 1991 vacated the interim
injuction restraining the present appellant from executing the detention C
• order when the writ petition was filed by the present respondent in the
Madras High Court on 10th July 1991. That a writ petition had been filed
in Calcutta challenging the detention order was mentioned both in the
Madras writ petition and in the reply filed thereto. We do not think that
in these circumstances the High Court was justified in exercising its discre-
tion to issue the high prerogative writ of mandamus to direct the appellant D
to forbear from executing .the detention order passed by it.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the judgment and order under
appeal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.