TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C) 1323 OF 1979 - - - Dated:- 20-2-1980 - P.S. KAILASAM, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ram Jethamalani and Harjinder Singh and M. M. Lodha For the Respondent : U.R. Lalit, A. V. Rangam and M. N. Shroff JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J.- The Petitioner Ramchandra A. Kamat has preferred this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release by quashing the order of his detention dated 31-8-1979 passed by second respondent, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The petitioner was directed to be detained by an order dated 31st August, 1979 under S. 3(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -9-1979 referred to above. Though the letter states that the Deputy Director, Bombay has been suitably advised regarding the request for supply of copies of statements and documents relied on in the detention order nothing further was done by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bombay. On the 14th September, 1979, the advocate not having received any communication, addressed a letter to the Deputy Director enclosing a copy of the letter which he received from the Deputy Secretary and requested the Deputy Director to supply him on behalf of his client copies of the relevant statements and documents referred to and relied upon in the order of detention at an early date. In reply to the letter of 14-9-79 by the Advocate, the Deputy Director in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enshrines the fundamental right of a detenu to have his representation considered and it is imperative that when the liberty of a person is in peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities. The same view has been expressed by this Court in a number of cases vide Seervai's Constitutional Law of India, Vol. I, page 542, paragraph 12.82. The right to make a representation is a fundamental right. The representation thus made should be considered expeditiously by the Government. In order to make an effective representation, the detenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ordinarily within five days of the order to detention, the intention is clear that the statements and documents which are referred to in the grounds of detention and which are required by the detenu and are expected to be in possession of the detaining authority should be furnished with reasonable expedition. It will have to be considered on the facts of the case whether there was any unexplained delay in furnishing the statements and documents relied on in the grounds of detention. The detenu was arrested on 5-9-1979 and his advocate by a letter dated 7-9-1979 Annexure 'C' to the writ petition wrote to the detaining authority stating that for making an effective representation, he must have copies of statements and documents ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979 in which the Advocate was asked to have inspection of the documents in his premises, between 1430 hours on 24-9-1979. The copies of the statements and documents requested by the Advocate for the detenu and directed by the Deputy Secretary to be furnished to the Advocate were not furnished to him instead the Deputy Director asked the Advocate to have inspection at the Deputy Director's office. After inspecting the documents on 22/24/25-9-1979, he insisted of having copies which were supplied on the 26th, 27th and 28th of September, 1979. The explanation given by the detaining authority regarding the delay in furnishing copies as seen in his counter affidavit is that the constitutional right of the petitioner to make effective re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct expeditiously. As noted already, a communication was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Deputy Director, who did not comply with the direction and furnish copies of the statements and documents. After a lapse of 12 days i.e. on 22-9-1979, the Deputy Director offered inspection. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and explanation furnished by the detaining authority, we are of the view that the detaining authority failed to act with reasonable expedition in furnishing the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention. On the facts of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the detention is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. The continued detention is not warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
