Order date – 10 October 2022

 Facts –

• The Petitioner, A. Irudayaraju, had transported a second-hand Tata Hitachi Excavator that had been intercepted on 01.08.2022 at 11.20 p.m. at Ammapet Bye Pass junction.
• According to the petitioner there was no order of detention that was passed in this case within the period as provided for under Section 129 and neither was a show cause notice issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the Act.
• Petitioner prayed to call for the records on the files of the respondent dated 11.08.2022 and 13.09.2022 and quash the same as being without its jurisdiction and authority of law and beyond the prescribed period of limitation and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Issue – 

• Whether the detention is in order?

Order – 

• The Court relied on the case of D.K.Enterprises V. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and another, order dated 29.08.2022 which set out the scheme of events and timelines stipulated under Section 129 of the Act commencing from interception of vehicle upto passing of final order of penalty. Since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon an authority to pass an order of detention prior thereto. 
• Further, it was observed that neither order of detention nor show cause notice have been issued in time. The date of interception of vehicle is 01.08.2022 and the order of detention has been passed only on 11.08.2022. The show cause notice has been issued on 16.08.2022.  The timelines as set out under Section 129 are completely vitiate the proceedings in full.
• Hence, the impugned orders were set aside. The vehicle in question was directed to be released forthwith.