IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Criminal) No ..128. ... ... /2018

IN THE MATTER OF :

1. Smt. Sushma Mishra,

W/o Sh. Santosh Mishra,
Both R/o C-1/55, Sharma Colony,
Budh Vihar Phase 2,
Delhi-110086
…………… PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance,

Government of India

2. The Superintendent, Tihar Jail

3. The State of Delhi NCT

…………..RESPONDENTS
A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAUS CORPUS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.

To.
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justices of the High Court of Delhi,
At New Delhi.
THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.That the petitioner is a resident Of C-1/55, Sharma Colony, Budh

Vihar Phase 2, Delhi-110086 and he was living peacefully at his
residence at the place aforesaid.

2. That on 2/1/18 Respondent No. 1 made an order under Section 3

of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by which he directed that the
Petitioner shall be arrested and detained for a period of three
months. A copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure 1.

3. That the Petitioner was arrested the same day and was detained
in Tihar Jail. The grounds of detention were not supplied to the
petitioner on that day. The grounds were actually supplied on
2/3/18. A copy of the grounds supplied is annexed herewith as
Annexure 2.

4. That on 10/3/18 the Petitioner submitted a representation against

his detention through Respondent No. 2 but the same was
considered by the Advisory Board after one month and was rejected
on 10/4/18.

5. That the grounds of detention supplied to the Petitioner were in

English which language the Petitioner does not know.

6. That the orders of detention of the Petitioner are illegal, improper

and without jurisdiction on the following:

GROUNDS:-

1. Because the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention

of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is unconstitutional and void as
it is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.

2. Because the order has been passed by an officer not duly

authorised.

3. Because the grounds were supplied after undue delay.

4. Because the grounds are in English which language the Petitioner

does not know and this has prevented him from making an effective
representation.

5. Because the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the Act.

6. Because the grounds are vague.

7. Because there was undue delay in the disposal of the

representation submitted by the petitioner.

Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon鍛le Court may be

pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the
opposite parties quashing the order of detention and directing that
the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.

PRAYER

The petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to:-

 a) Issue a writ of habeas Corpus or other suitable writ under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

b) Issue any other further order(s) or direction as this Hon’ble

Court deem fit and appropriate on the facts and in the

circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER, AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Delhi.
Dated: 20th April 2018
Petitioners

Through

Dimple Gyamlani

ADVOCATE

VERIFICATION

It is verified at New Delhi this day of October, 2018 that

paras 1 to 3 of above writ petition under Article 226/227 of

Constitution of India are true and correct to his knowledge and

paras 4 to 6 are true to petitioner’s information received and

believed to be true by him. Last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court

and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

PETITIONERS