TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner/detenue to be detained and kept in custody in the abovesaid prison with a view to preventing the detenue from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The period of detention has been fixed for one year as per the order dated January 16, 1991 with effect from October 27, 1990. As the facts of the case which necessitated the detaining authority to pass this detention order, are well set out in the grounds of detention, we think that it is not necessary for us to reiterate the same. Challenging the validity of the order, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/detenue pressed only one contention that there has been undue and unexplained delay in disposing the represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is clear that the Sponsoring Authority from whom the comments were called for, had delayed in sending the comments up to January 1, 1991 despite the fact that the comments were called for from him on December 4, 1990. Barring that, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the delay had occasioned at the hands of the Sponsoring Authority to send the parawise remarks or the comments to respondent 1. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1 unsuccessfully tries to explain by stating that since the Sponsoring Authority was at a far away place i.e. Ernakulam, the delay had occasioned due to postal transmission and that if the postal delay is excluded there is actually no delay rendering the detention order invalid. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear to have been set out by specific pleading. The decision in Pratap Jeevanlal case [1986 Cri LJ 1157] cannot also be availed of by respondent 1 since in that case the contention advanced was that the detaining authority was not justified to take assistance from the sponsoring authority which contention was repelled by the High Court. Leave apart, the facts of that case reveal that there was not much delay in the Sponsoring Authority in sending his comments to the detaining authority. It appears that the comments called for on February 20, 1985 by the detaining authority were forwarded on March 1, 1985, to say, within 8 to 9 days. Hence, we hold that these two decisions relied upon by respondent 1 are of no help to the case of respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation as satisfactory quashed the detention order as being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 6. The next decision relied upon on the side of the petitioner is Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 148 1990 SCC (Cri) 434]. In that case the Sponsoring Authority caused a delay of 17 days in forwarding the comments and there was no explanation as to why such a delay had occurred. Having regard to those facts, this Court held that the unexplained delay had vitiated the order of detention. 7. As we have already pointed out there was an inordinate delay of nearly 28 days in forwarding the comments by the Sponsoring Authority which delay stands unexplained in the instant case. 8. In these circumstances, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
