TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 2020 has not been explained at all - Thus, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that there is an inordinate delay in considering the representations made by the petitioner to the Specially Empowered Officer as well as to the Central Government. In fact, there are no efforts made to explain the reasons for such inordinate delay. Hence, there is a complete violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and in particular Clause (5) thereof. On account of the inordinate delay in deciding the representations made by the petitioner, the continuation of impugned order of preventive detention is vitiated and therefore the impugned order of detention will have to be set aside. Impugned order set aside - the petitioner/Mr. Kenneth Jideofor shall be set at liberty forthwith by the Bengaluru Central Prison, if he is not required in connection with any other case - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION (HC) NO. 16 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2020 - THE HON BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY PETITIONER: SHRI HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SHRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: SHRI M.B. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15th April, 2020 does not record that the same was considered by Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, who was the Specially Empowered Officer. He submitted that there was no reason to keep the representation pending till the Government of India took a decision on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board. He submitted that consideration of the representation by the Specially Empowered Officer after the confirmation of the detention order by the Government cannot be said to be an effective consideration of the representation. He submitted that even the representation dated 17th April, 2020 submitted by the petitioner to the Central Government was belatedly decided on 30th April, 2020. He placed reliance on several decisions including a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of ANKIT ASHOK JALAN .v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2020 SCC OnLine SC 288. 5. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention were not served within a reasonable time from the date on which the order of detention was passed. He submitted that in fact, there is material on record to show that when the order of detention was served upon the petitioner on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time on 29th April, 2020 to the detaining authority and was rejected on the very day by the Specially Empowered Officer. He submitted that the same representation was placed before the Advisory Board. In a meeting held on 18th April, 2020, the Advisory Board considered the said representation and submitted a report to the Central Government on the basis of which the impugned order of detention was confirmed. He submitted that the representation has been also considered by the Central Government and the same has been rejected by the memorandum dated 30th April, 2020. 9. He submitted that there is more than sufficient explanation for the small delay in disposing of the representation. He submitted that the Apex Court, in many cases, has confirmed the order of detention when there was a delay of a few months in considering the representation. He submitted that there is no delay in furnishing the grounds of detention. He urged that the grounds of detention and all the annexures thereto running into more than 600 pages along with translation of Kannada documents were served on the petitioner on 8th February, 2020 and his acknowledgement has been obtained on each page. He submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. (Emphasis added) 11. Before we go to the specific arguments on merits, we must also make a note of the law laid down by another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL .v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1995) 4 SCC 51 and in particular paragraph 49 which reads thus: 49. At this stage it becomes necessary to deal with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that some of the detenus have been indulging in illicit smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances on a large scale and are involved in other anti-national activities which are very harmful to the national economy. He has urged that having regard to the nature of the activities of the detenus the cases do not justify interference with the orders of detention made against them. We are not unmindful of the harmful consequences of the activities in which the detenus are alleged to be involved. But while discharging our constitutional obligation to enforce the fundamental rights of the people, more especially the right to personal liberty, we cannot allow ourselves to be influe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detaining Authority due to lockdown. It is further stated that when the detaining Authority became aware of the representation dated 15th April 2020, a copy of the same was obtained from NCB, Bengaluru on 29th April 2020 through e-mail. The representation dated 15th April 2020 was decided on 29th April 2020. 14. It is further stated that the same representation was also placed before the Advisory Board on 18th April 2020 in its meeting at New Delhi. According to the case made out by the first respondent, after hearing the petitioner via video conferencing, the Advisory Board submitted its opinion to the Central Government on 20th April 2020. The Central Government, after considering the report/opinion of the Advisory Board, has confirmed the order of preventive detention on 27th April 2020. Moreover, another representation made by the petitioner on 17th April 2020 was also considered and rejected by the Central Government vide memorandum dated 30th April 2020. 16. At this stage, useful reference can be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of ANKITH ASHOK JALAN (supra) particularly, paragraph 11, which reads thus: 11. The learned counsel appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru. It is an admitted position that the representation was made to Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, and (PITNDPS UNIT) New Delhi, who is the Specially Empowered Officer and who passed the impugned order. It was forwarded to Zonal Officer of the NCB, Bengaluru by e-mail on 16th April 2020. As stated in the grounds of detention, NCB, Bengaluru is the Sponsoring Authority. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Sponsoring Authority about its complete failure to forward it to the Specially Empowered Officer by e-mail. It is pertinent to note that the representation was placed before the Advisory Board in New Delhi on 18th April 2020. But it was never forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority to the office of the Specially Empowered Officer in New Delhi. 19. There is no explanation offered regarding the failure of the Sponsoring Authority to forward a copy of the representation to the Specially Empowered Officer. A copy of representation dated 15th April 2020 was sent by the Prison Authorities to the Joint Secretary (PITNDPS) by speed post. There is no explanation why the representation was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
