- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajappa Neelakantan v. State Of T.N And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Public Relations Officer in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department, was intercepted at Anna International Airport on 25-4-1999 while travelling with Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. A search revealed 102 mobile phones in the petitioner’s baggage and 92 in his co-traveller’s. Both were arrested the next day and released on bail on 28-6-1999. On 2-8-1999, the State of Tamil Nadu issued a preventive detention order against the petitioner under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). Detention commenced on 4-8-1999 for one year. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order; during the pendency of the petition he was on parole by orders of the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the detention order is vitiated because the sponsoring authority failed to place relevant and vital documents—specifically, records relating to the detention of the petitioner’s co-traveller—before the detaining authority.
- Whether delay by the Central Government in considering and disposing of the petitioner’s representation rendered the detention unlawful.
- Whether there was a compelling necessity to detain the petitioner preventively when his co-traveller had already been detained.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Customs Department did not supply the detaining authority with records concerning the co-traveller’s detention; had these been considered, a different decision might have emerged.
- The Central Government took an unreasonably long time—1-9-1999 to 15-9-1999—to dispose of his representation, vitiating the order.
- Because the co-traveller was already preventively detained, there was no compelling necessity to detain the petitioner separately; he merely accompanied the co-traveller.
Respondents’ Arguments
- On the alleged delay, counsel for the Union of India explained that the representation likely arrived just before or after a string of government holidays (3-5 September 1999). Sorting and routing mail after the holiday period caused the interval until it reached the COFEPOSA Unit on 9-9-1999; the remaining processing time was reasonable.
- On compelling necessity, counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu highlighted that the petitioner had made prior similar trips with the same co-traveller, showing the capacity and inclination to continue smuggling activities; therefore a separate detention was warranted despite his official position.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
First ground – non-placement of co-traveller’s records: The Court held that the detention must rest principally on the petitioner’s own actions. Supplying the co-traveller’s detention file might have biased the detaining authority rather than aided objective decision-making. Moreover, the same authority had passed the co-traveller’s detention order only six days earlier and was therefore aware of it.
Second ground – delay in considering representation: The Court recognised an apparent delay (1-9-1999 to 15-9-1999) but accepted the Government’s explanation. The representation reached the COFEPOSA Unit on 9-9-1999 after a three-day holiday period, during which accumulated mail required sorting. The interval was found reasonable and adequately explained, so the procedural safeguard was not violated.
Third ground – absence of compelling necessity: The Court rejected the argument that detention of the co-traveller obviated the need to detain the petitioner. Noting the petitioner’s multiple trips with the co-traveller and his government position, the Court held that the detaining authority could reasonably conclude that the petitioner possessed the means and intent to continue smuggling. Hence, subjective satisfaction was properly formed.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The writ petition is dismissed.
Immediate consequence: the parole earlier granted to the petitioner is terminated forthwith, and the detention order remains in force. The Court’s decision is confined to the facts of this case and does not establish new precedent.
Order
1. This writ petition is filed by a detenu challenging the order of detention passed against him on 2-8-1999 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the COFEPOSA Act”). The detention actually commenced on 4-8-1999 and it is for a period of one year. We are told that presently the detenu is on parole and the parole is being extended by orders of this Court.
2. The detention order was passed in the following background: the petitioner arrived at Anna International Airport on 25-4-1999 in the company of one Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. The petitioner was an Assistant Public Relations Officer attached to the Department of Tourism under the Government of Tamil Nadu. On suspicion, the petitioner and his co-traveller Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran were intercepted and on search 102 mobile phones were detected from the baggage of the petitioner alone and from the baggage of his co-traveller 92 mobile phones were detected. Both of them were arrested on the next day and their statements were separately recorded. The petitioner was released on bail on 28-6-1999.
3. The preventive detention order was passed against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. We may mention now that the said order was challenged in this Court but we did not interfere with the said order as per the judgment of this Court dated 2-3-2000.
4. Mainly three points have been raised by the petitioner in challenge of the detention order passed against him. They are:
1. The sponsoring authority (the Customs Department) did not place relevant and vital documents for consideration before the detaining authority.
2. There was delay in considering and disposing of the representation made by the petitioner before the Central Government.
3. There was no compelling necessity to preventively detain the petitioner.
5. For elaborating the first ground learned counsel contended that records connected with the detention of the co-traveller Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran were not placed before the detaining authority. Had those records been placed, perhaps, the detaining authority would have come to a different conclusion, contended learned counsel.
6. We cannot appreciate the said contention for two reasons. First is that the detention order in respect of the present petitioner should be based principally on the facts centred on what he had done in collaboration with his co-traveller. In other words, if the detention order and the connected records relating to the co-traveller were to be placed before the detaining authority there could possibly be an apprehension that the detaining authority would be biased against the petitioner because of the various allegations contained therein. Second is that the detaining authority cannot be said to be totally ignorant of the fact that Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was also detained under a separate order, for, the aforesaid detention order against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was passed by the same detaining authority just six days prior to the impugned detention order. So we do not see much force in the said ground raised now.
7. While dealing with the second ground we initially thought that the petitioner has really a case to put forward because at the first blush it may appear that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. We may point out that the representation to the Central Government was actually made by the detenu on 1-9-1999 and the same was disposed of by the Central Government only on 15-9-1999. No doubt there was delay. It is not the law that whenever there is any delay the detention order would be vitiated. The law is that the delay should not be unexplainable and that the explanation offered must appear to the court to be reasonable and acceptable.
8. In the present case the representation sent by the detenu to the Central Government on 1-9-1999 had reached the COFEPOSA Unit of the Finance Department only on 9-9-1999. Shri T.L.V Iyer, learned Senior Counsel who argued for the Union of India submitted after verifying the documents that there is some lapse in the Department for mentioning the exact date on which the representation had reached the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. Normally, a seal would be affixed showing the date on which the representation was received in the Department, but such a seal is not seen affixed on the particular representation. Of course, that does not mean that the representation had not reached the Department at all at any time. It is a certainty that it would have reached the Department on a day prior to 9-9-1999. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that as 3rd, 4th and 5th of September, 1999 were government holidays the representation would have possibly reached the Department either on 2nd evening or on the 6th of September. If that be so, the question is whether placing the said representation before the COFEPOSA Unit on 9-9-1999 can be treated as unreasonably delayed.
9. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out the practicalities involved in sifting and sorting various mails which would have heaped up in the Department by 6-9-1999 on account of the preceding government holidays for a continuous three days' period. He submitted that it is not enough that somebody in the Department would see the outer cover of the representation. Every mail should have been opened, read and found out as to which Department it should be placed and only after such sorting process is made the representation could be sent to the appropriate section. We are inclined to accept the said explanation for the intervening period between 6th and 9th September for the representation to reach the COFEPOSA Unit. We may note here that there can possibly be no grievance that the order of disposal made on 15-5-1999 was vitiated by delay subsequent to 9-9-1999. We, therefore, hold that the grievance regarding delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government is not valid in the circumstances of this case.
10. While elaborating the third ground, i.e, want of compelling necessity to preventively detain the petitioner, Shri K.K Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently stated that when the co-traveller was preventively detained there was no need to detain the petitioner separately as he had only accompanied him. On the other hand, Shri V.R Reddy, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the State of Tamil Nadu pointed out the broad features surrounding the catch made at the airport on 25-4-1999. This was not the only occasion when the petitioner travelled to Singapore and the surrounding places. On a previous occasion also the petitioner had gone up to those places. It is pertinent to point out that on the previous occasion also the petitioner had gone to some places with the same co-traveller. On the second occasion when he came back with all the contraband articles it was for the detaining authority to subjectively satisfy whether this petitioner had acquired the wherewithal to continue with the nefarious activities. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Public Relations Officer attached to the Tourism Department we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be treated at a lesser degree than his co-traveller so far as the formation of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is concerned.
11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needles to say that the parole benefit which the petitioner is enjoying by virtue of the order passed by this Court will stand terminated forthwith.
Alert