TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h August, 1991, the appellant's husband was detained pursuant to the order of detention made by Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Hyderabad, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Act. This detention was challenged before the High Court on grounds, inter alia, that the representation made by the detenu to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 6.10.1991 for the revocation of the order of detention was not disposed of expeditiously, but was delayed by over 174 days in transmitting the representation to the State Government and the representation came to be disposed of only on the 7th of April 1992. The appellant urged that the representation made to the Governor is for intents a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government. But, the contention in this case is that the petitioner and her husband knowing fully well that the representation has to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Government have deliberately sent the representation to the Governor on 6.10.1991 to create a ground for delay and to seek the detention order quashed on that ground.... From these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner had sent the representation to the Governor on 6.10.1991 deliberately though she and the detenu were aware that the representation should be sent to the Chief Secretary, with a view to create a ground for challenging the detention on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation.... The Governor's Secretariat may be rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertained to matters other than the validity of the detention. 5. We have been taken through the contents of the earlier representations relied upon by the Detaining Authority as having in effect and substance raised the validity of the detention. We are satisfied that the purport and content of the representations cannot be understood the way the Detaining Authority wants us to understand. They dealt with matters other than the validity of the detention, the first and the only representation made by the detenu which raised the question of the validity of the detention was the one made on 6.10.1991 to the Governor for consideration which was greatly delayed. The position that a representation made to the Governor must be treated as one m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
