9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detaining authority, in which he inter all asked for supply of the copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. The representation of the detenu was not dealt with by Shri Pradhan, but by the Minister of State in the Home Ministry of the State Government, and was rejected on December 10, 1979. The Minister is said to have been authorised to deal with the representation of detenus by a Standing Order made by the Chief Minister on December 3, 1979. In the meantime , the Advisory Board met and considered the representation of the detenu and made a report to the Government on December 6, 1979 for approval of the detention. The said Minister had dealt with the representation and rejected it after the Board had made its reports to the Government. 5. On November, 19, 1979, the detenu made an application to the Central Government for revocation of the order of his detention Under Section 11 of COFEPOSA, and this has not been dealt with by that Government till today. 6. Mr. Jeth Malani, appearing for the detenu, has made four submissions: (1) The Minister of State was not competent to dispose of the representation of the detenu, because the Order dated Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvested with a right to move the Central Government for revoking the detention. Mr. Nain further tried to distinguish the Syham Ambalal Siroya's case (ibid) on the ground that therein, the detaining authority was the Central Government, while in the instant case, the order was passed by the State Government. 10. Both the learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, relied upon the decision of this Court in Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal: [1975] Supp. S.C.R.124 Counsel further submitted that what has been said by Fazal Ali, J. in. Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan's case, conflicts with the ratio of Shyam Ambalal Siroya's and Tarachand relied upon by the petitioner. It is urged that on account of this conflict, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. It is maintained that the last mentioned two cases have not been correctly decided. If the ratio of these two decisions-proceeds the argument-is liberally applied, then it means that the detenu has a right to vex the Central Government by making endless representations even where no new facts have come to light. 11. In the alternative, Mr. Nain contended that only in a case where the repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and watchful care. The report received Under Section 3, or any communication or petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedition. What is 'reasonable expedition' is a question depending on the circumstances of the particular case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time can be laid down. But it certainly does not cover the delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable redtapism and unduly protracted procrastination. 13. The plea specifically taken by the writ petitioner in Ground No. XXII of his affidavit, runs as under The petitioner says that he made a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order Under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA. The Central Government has not considered the said representation and thus the detenu's continued detention is illegal. 14. Earlier, in paragraph 7 of his affidavit, also, he had mentioned that he had sent a communication to the Central Government, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Branch, asking for revocation of the detention order, but no reply had been received. In spite of the fact that this ground was specifically taken, Mr. R.K. Thawani, Depu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government, it is duty bound to consider the same in order to exercise its discretion either in rejecting or accepting it. If there is inordinate delay in considering the representation that would clearly amount to violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) so as to render the detention unconstitutional and void." 18. The ratio of Tara Chand's case was followed in Shyam Ambalal Siroya's case, wherein a stand similar to the one before us was taken by the Central Government in the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf. The stand taken was that the detention order was not vitiated merely because the Central Government had not considered the representation of the detenu made to it for revocation of the detention Under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA. The Court rejected this contention with this observation: The power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention implies that the detenu can make a representation for exercise of that power. Any petition for revocation of an order of detention should be dealt with reasonable expedition... It may be permissible for the Central Government to take reasonable time for disposing any revocation petition. But it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
