TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the circumstances of the case, I think that the report of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki necessarily implied that the detention was found by the Board to be justified on the date of its report as also on the date of the making of the order of detention. Petitions dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 21-5-1982 - O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. JUDGMENT Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki, two British nationals, said to be friends and collaborators in smuggling enterprises are now under detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. Richard Beale arrived at Madras from Singapore on December 11, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r modify an order of detention made by the State Government or its officers and to the decisions of this Court laying down that delay by the Central Government in dealing with representations of the detenu would also entail the detention invalidating itself. Apart from the fact that there is no proper foundation for the submission, I am not satisfied that there is any merit in the submission. The Writ Petitions were filed on March 12, 1982 and there was then no hint of this submission. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu was filed on April 5, 1982. Thereafter, the clerk of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has sworn to an affidavit mentioning the facts giving rise to the present submission. It appears from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered immediately, would entitle the detenus to be set at liberty. Nor is it possible to treat the countless petitions, memorials and representations which are everywhere presented to the Prime Minister and other Ministers as statutory appeals or petitions, statutorily obliging them to consider and dispose of such appeals and petitions in the manner provided by statute. No doubt the Prime Minister and other Ministers, as leaders in whom the people have reposed faith and confidence, will deal with such appeals and petitions with due and deserved despatch. But quite obviously that will not be because they are discharging statutory obligations. It is not also possible to treat representations from whatever source addressed to whomsoever offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the laws and procedures of this country. To deny legal representation to them was an unreasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the Advisory Board to permit or not to permit legal representation. According to the learned Counsel, this was a clear case where legal representation should have been permitted. In any case, it was urged, the detenus ought to have been offered at least 'friendly' representation, if not legal representation. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of the Constitution Bench in A.K. Roy v. Union of India : Another aspect of this matter which needs to be mentioned is that the embargo on the appearance of legal practitioners should not be extended so as to prevent the detenu from bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a friend. Whenever demanded, the Advisory Boards must grant that facility. In the present case, the Advisory Board consisting of three Judges of the High Court of Tamil Nadu considered it unnecessary and inadvisable to allow legal representation to the detenus. It was a matter for the decision of the Advisory Board and I do not think I will be justified in substituting my judgment in the place of their judgment. The detenus were heard personally by the Advisory Board. After seeing and hearing them personally also, the Board did not feel it necessary to provide legal representation to them which they would certainly have done if they had thought that the detenus appeared to require such representation. Regarding representation by a frie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corridor so as to enable them to produce the relevant files whenever required for perusal by the Board. The charge of inequality of treatment is, therefore, baseless. Yet another submission of the learned Counsel was that the Advisory Board failed to consider the question whether the detention continued to be justified on the date of the report of the Advisory Board, even if it was justified on the date of the making of the order of detention. The order of detention was made on 7.1.82 and the consideration by the Advisory Board was on 8.2.82. The passage of time was not so long nor had any circumstances intervened to justify any compartment-wise consideration of the justification for the detention on the date of the making of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
