9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of detention order due to delay in disposal of representation Analysis: The detenue filed a petition challenging the validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenue argued that there was undue delay in disposing of the representation, which violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The counter by respondent 1 acknowledged the delay in receiving comments from the Sponsoring Authority, attributing it to postal transmission. However, the delay remained unexplained, with no affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority to clarify the situation. The Court examined the explanations provided by respondent 1 and found them unsatisfactory. The delay of nearly 28 days in obtaining comments from the Sponsoring Authority was deemed unjustified. The Court rejected the argument that postal transmission caused the delay, as the explanation was not supported by evidence or affidavits. The Court also distinguished previous cases cited by respondent 1, emphasizing that those decisions were not applicable to the current situation due to differences in facts and delays involved. Citing previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of expeditiously considering and disposing of representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court referred to cases where unexplained delays in forwarding comments had led to the quashing of detention orders. In the present case, the Court concluded that the undue and unexplained delay in disposing of the detenue's representation rendered the detention order invalid. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned detention order and directed the detenue to be released immediately unless there were other valid reasons for detention. The writ petition filed by the detenue was allowed, ruling in favor of the petitioner due to the unjustified delay in handling the representation.
|
