- (1.)In this writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 14th November, 1986 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). This application was moved on February 13, 1987, affirmed by the wife of the petitioner as the petitioner was at the material time in USA in connection with his export business pursuant to the leave granted by the Karnataka High Court.
(2.)Upon the said application being moved an interim order was made on 19th February, 1987 restraining respondents from giving any effect to or taking any steps in pursuance of the said order of detention dated 14th November, 1986. It may be mentioned that in spite of notice of the application served upon Deputy Director of Enforcement, no one put in appearance for the Deputy Director or for any of the respondents. On 23rd February, 1987 a further order was made giving liberty to the petitioner to incorporate the date and number of the order passed under COFEPOSA Act. Earlier direction made that the petitioner should not leave West Bengal without the leave of this Court was deleted in view of the fact that pursuant to leave granted by the Karnataka High Court the petitioner had already left India and was at the material time away from the country.
(3.)Curiously enough on 6th April, 1987 Mr. Somen Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India asked for vacating the interim order made by this Court urging that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. But the concerned respondents did not put in appearance nor did ask for vacating or variation of the said interim order. Liberty was reserved to the Union of India to make an application for vacating interim order on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application on which the said interim order had been made. It was further directed that if and when such application would be made the contentions regarding jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this application would be decided. It was also directed that until disposal of the main writ application or vacating of the interim order whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall report once in every week to the respondent No. 5, the Deputy Director of Enforcement at Madras. In default, the interim order would stand vacated. Be it recorded that the petitioner returned to Calcutta on 5th April, 1987 and on 6th April, 1987 he was present in Court and accordingly the petitioner was directed to report to the Deputy Director of Enforcement on 9th April 1987.