9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detention order dated 29th September, 2014 along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 13th November, 2014 and subsequent thereto the detenu has been lodged in Central Prison at Nashik Road. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention order dated 29th September, 2014 by the Respondent No.1 can briefly be stated thus:- On 15th July, 2013 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI' for short) seized about 132.882 MTs of Red Sanders from Nhava Sheva and another quantity of 18.350 MTs Red Sanders valued at Rs. 53.15 Crores and Rs. 7.34 Crores respectively. During the course of investigation by the officers of the DRI, it is revealed that the detenu was an active member of the cartel that indulged in smuggling of Red Sanders in an organised manner over a period of time. It was further revealed that the detenu was instrumental in the attempted smuggling of 151 MTs of Red Sanders valued at about Rs. 60 Crores in export containers that were seized on 15th July, 2013 and 18th July, 2013 at J.N.P.T., Nhava Sheva and Panvel. That Red Sanders is a natural resource covered under CITES (Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court in the case of a co-detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No.4618 of 2014 on similar ground has quashed and set aside the impugned detention order therein on the ground that the continuous detention of the detenu was held to be illegal and vitiated for breach of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He placed on record a copy of the said judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.4618 of 2014 in support of his contention. 5. After notice, in response to the Petition, Sanjay Dagadu Khedekar, Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai has filed a detailed affidavit dated 16th March, 2015 on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereby opposing the Petition. Mr. M.P. Madhavan, Assistant Director, D.R.I. has also filed a detailed affidavit dated 20th March, 2015 opposing the Petition. 6. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavit dated 16th March, 2015 in response to ground 6(f) of the Petition have tried to explain the delay which has occurred at the instance of the detaining authority at the first instance and secondly at the instance of the Additional Chief Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority with respect to the paragraphs in the representation were called for by letter dated 9th December, 2014. A reminder letter was sent on 16th December, 2014 as the comments were not received by then. The sponsoring authority forwarded the parawise comments by its letter dated 2nd January, 2015 which were received by the Additional Chief Secretary on the same day. The assistant submitted the parawise comments on 2nd January, 2015 which were endorsed by the Section Officer on the same day. That Mr. Amitabh Rajan, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home) retired on 31st December, 2014 and was replaced by Mr. K.P. Bakshi. New Additional Chief Secretary (Home) joined the office on 1st January, 2015. The Additional Chief Secretary directed to discuss the matter in person on 7th January, 2015. That after discussion and after considering the representation and parawise comments from the sponsoring authority, the Additional Chief Secretary rejected the representation on 8th January, 2015 and the said fact was informed to the Petitioner on 8th January, 2015 itself. 8. Mr. M.P. Madhavan, Assistant Director, DRI in his affidavit dated 20th March, 2015 while explaining the delay caused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish Verma, (ii) furnishing parawise comments on Cr. W.P. No.4618 of 2014 filed in the Honourable Bombay High Court by Smt. Anita Ajay Sharma on behalf of Co-detenu Ajay Kumar Sharma @ Manish Verma, (iii) filing of affidavit on behalf of the Sponsoring Authority in W.P. No.4618 of 2014 filed in the Honourable Bomay High Court by Smt. Anita Ajay Sharma on behalf of Co-detenu Ajay Kumar Sharma @ Manish Verma, and (iv) attending to the requirements for the proceedings before the Advisory Board in respect of Co-detenues Ajay Kumar Sharma @ Manish Verma and Dattatray Chandrakant Bodake. Besides, the period between 12.12.2014 (date of receipt of the representation) and 02.01.2015 (date of furnishing of parawise comments) there were eleven holidays which have to be excluded from the time taken for furnishing parawise comments on the representation dated 02.12.2014 made by Smt. Sangeetha Kirti Patel. " 10. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the detention matter with respect to the co-detenu - Ajay Kumar Sharma in its judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015 has taken a judicial note with respect to the spacious plea which has been taken by the sponsoring authority que the " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concept of liberty--the highly cherished right--which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. 20. True, there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the representation should be dealt with. The use of the word "as soon as may be" occurring in Article 22(5) of the Constitution reflects that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. However, in case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the authority is so unreasonably long and the explanation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay could vitiate the order of detention." 12. Thus, while reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted here that, the delay in deciding the representation by the detaining authority between 12th December, 2014 and 2nd January, 2015 of about 20 days has not at all been explained, least sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
