Union Of India vs Ranu Bhandari

3. The facts which are said to have led to the passing of the detention order are briefly summarized hereunder.

4. Shri Sanjay Bhandari obtained Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (E.P.C.G.) licences as Service Provider in respect of four firms/companies which were floated by him from time to time and imported vehicles at concessional rates for personal use in flagrant misuse of the said licences. The said vehicles were never used for tourist purposes as declared for obtaining the E.P.C.G. licences and the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate shown by him did not relate to his earnings from the use of the imported cars. In addition to the above, all the vehicles which were 3 imported under the aforesaid licences were registered as private vehicles.

6. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the detenu's wife, Ranu Bhandari, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the same mainly on the ground of non-supply of various documents, which according to the respondent, prevented the detenu from making an effective representation to the detention order. Being satisfied that certain relevant documents which had been considered by the Detaining Authority while issuing the detention order had not been supplied to the detenu to make an effective representative against his continued detention, the High Court allowed his Writ Petition and quashed the detention order dated 15th December, 2005, which has been challenged in the appeal.

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that apart from the aforesaid view of general application, two other views had also been taken by this Court. One view was that all documents referred to or mentioned in the detention order would have to be supplied to the detenu and if even one of them was not supplied, the detention order would stand vitiated. The other view was that except for the documents which were relevant and had been relied upon by the Detaining Authority in passing the detention order, other documents mentioned in the detention order or referred to therein were not required to be supplied to the detenu. The learned Additional Solicitor General reiterated that in the instant case all the documents on which the Detaining Authority had relied while issuing the detention order, had been duly supplied to the detenu, who, however, insisted that he should have also been provided with certain documents which were within his knowledge. The said documents had been itemised as his representation dated 12.12.2005, the show-cause 7 notice dated 22.7.2004 which had been received by him, his writ petition No.5431 of 2002 and the I.E.C. Code pertaining to the three proprietorship firms belonging to him, which had not been placed before the Detaining Authority. It was submitted that not only did the detenu have knowledge of all the said documents, but they were available with the detenu.

17. It was submitted that in the instant case certain vital documents which could have had a bearing on the decision of the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order, had not been placed before the Detaining Authority as the same were in the detenu's favour and upon considering the same the Detaining Authority may not have issued the said detention order. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the representation which had been made by the detenu on 12.12.2005, the agreement dated 9.11.07 executed between the detenu and his agents for using the resort for which the vehicles had been imported, the relevant portions of the Settlement Commission's order by which the detenu had been absolved of all criminal proceedings, and the writ petition filed by the detenu, would have convincingly placed the case of the detenu before the Detaining Authority had they been before the said Authority for consideration. It was further submitted that 13 non-supply of the said documents, irrespective of whether they had originated from the detenu himself, had prevented the detenu from making an effective representation against the detention order, since without having the documents in front of him, it was not possible for the detenu to remember the contents of the said documents in their entirety, which contained in detail the stand of the detenu. By depriving the detenu of the said documents he was deprived of the right guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution which was mandatory and any breach thereof had been held by this Court to be sufficient to vitiate the detention order.

31. In the said circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and 25 order of the High Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

32. In parting, we may reiterate what we have indicated hereinbefore, that since the personal liberty and individual freedom of a citizen is curtailed by an order of preventive detention, the Detaining Authorities must apply their minds carefully and exercise great caution in passing such an order upon being fully satisfied from materials which are both for and against the detenu that such an order is required to be passed in the interest of the State and for the public good.