TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Greater Bombay. In pursuance of the impugned order, the detenu is detained in the Central Prison, Nasik from 31.8.88. He has been furnished with the copies of the grounds of detention and other materials on the basis of which the detaining authority drew his subjective satisfaction. In the grounds of detention the detenu is stated to have been involved in three incidents; they being: (1) On 9.4.1988 at about 11.30 p.m. the detenu and his associate Sunil attacked one Laxman Devsingh Gurkha, during the course of which Sunil slapped on his face while the detenu caused an injury with a sword on the neck of Laxman. In respect of this incident a case as CR No. 269 of 1988 for offences under Sections 324 and 114 Indian Penal Code has been registered by Dadar Police; (2) On 10.4.1988 the detenu along with his associates went to a pharmaceutical company at Worli and demanded a sum of ₹ 3000 at the point of choppers from one Banwarilal Bhagirath and on subsequent dates from one Babulal Mistry. Relating to this incident, Babulal lodged before Worli Police Station a complaint which was registered as CR No. 183/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentation. It is not in dispute that the detenu made his representation both to the State Government as well as the Central Government on 26.9.88. But the 3rd respondent which has already completed the examination of the report dated 6.9.88 sent by the 2nd respondent (the State Government) under Section 3(5) of the Act even on 13.9.88. however, felt that certain informations were required from the State Government for its further consideration of the representation and, therefore, the 3rd respondent sent a wireless message on 3.10. 1988 to the State Government asking for further informations. The required information was received by the third respondent only on 17.10.88. Thereafter the representation was considered and the final decision to reject it was taken on 27.10.88 and the decision of the Central Government rejecting the representation was communicated to the appellant through crash wireless message on 31.10.88. In attempting to explain the delay from 17.10.88 to 27.10.88 it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent that 18th, 20th, 22nd and 23rd October 1988 were the closed holidays; but no explanation is given as to why the repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion considered and it is imperative that when the liberty of a person is in peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities. This Court in Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1973] 1 SCR 691 expressed the view that it is incumbent on the State to explain the inordinate delay in considering and rejecting the representation of the detenu and satisfy the Court that there was justification in that delay. While dealing with the constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the detenu s representation by the Government as spelt out from Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution this Court, after referring to the decisions in Abdul Karim and Others v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 1 SCC 433 and Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty and Others v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 3 SCC 400 has stated in Rashik Sk. v. State of West Bengal, [1973] 3 SCC 476, as follows: It is undoubtedly true that neither the Constitution nor the Act expressly provides for consideration of a detenu s representation by the State Government within any specified period of time. The constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioner s representation by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tection that a detenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the procedural safeguards prescribed by Article 22(5) read with Article 19, the Courts have a duty to rigidly insist that preventive detention procedures be fair and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural imperative must lead to the release of the detenu. See also B. Sundar Rao and Others v. State of Orissa, [1972] 3 SCC 11; Jnanendra Nath Roy v. The State of West Bengal, [1972] 4 SCC 50; Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Others, [1980] 2 SCC 275; Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Ors., [1982] 2 SCC 43; Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [1983] 4 SCC 537 and Mohinuddin alias Moin Master and Ors. v. D.M. Beed, [1987] 4 SCC 58. The propositions deducible from the various reported decisions of this Court can be stated thus: The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
