TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved with the order of detention made by Respondent No. 1 along with the grounds of detention. The detenu was also served with the relevant documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. On 21st May, 1988, the detenu made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 stating that some of the documents supplied with the grounds of detention are not at all legible and as such requested for supplying him typed copies of those documents in order to enable him to make an effective representation. On 27th May, 1988 a reply was sent to the said letter under the signatures of Mr. K.N.N. Karaniha, Under Secretary to the Government, Home Department (COFEPOSA CELL) where it has been stated that those documents are legible and as such the request for furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India. It has been urged in this connection that the document, Panchnama (Mahajar) dated February 12,1988 which has been specifically referred to in the list of documents supplied pari passu with the grounds of detention was not legible. The detenu immediately after receipt of the grounds made a request to the detaining authority on May 21, 1988 for giving him typed copy of the said document. This request was turned down by the detaining authority and no legible or typed copy of the said document was supplied to the detenu to enable him to make his effective representation against the impugned order of detention made under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nu to make an effective representation against the same. The detaining authority on receipt of the said representation sent a reply denying that the copies of those documents were illegible and refusing to supply typed copies of the same. It is clearly provided in Sub-article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India that :- When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Therefore, it is imperative that the detaining authority has to serve the grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents were, however, supplied to the detenu after the detention order was confirmed. It was held that the detenu was denied the opportunity of making a representation and as such there was a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu was, therefore, set at liberty. 7. Considering these decisions we are constrained to hold that the refusal on the part of the detaining authority to supply legible copies of the said relevant document to the detenu for making an effective representation infringed the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The order of detention is, therefore, set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith. The appeal is thus allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
