1996 (2) TMI 537 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention orders u/s 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
2. Delay in disposal of representations made by the detenus.
3. Violation of constitutional and statutory rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act.

Summary:

1. Legality of Detention Orders u/s 3(2) of the Act:
The petitioners, detained under orders dated 16th August 1995 by the District Magistrates of Ahmedabad and Surat, challenged their detention. The grounds of detention were supplied separately on the same date. The first petitioner was detained for possessing kerosene meant for public distribution, while the second petitioner was detained for irregularities in the sale of government foodgrains.

2. Delay in Disposal of Representations:
The principal contention was the delay in the disposal of the representations made by the petitioners against the detention orders. The State Government's counter-affidavit detailed the process and timeline of handling the representation, indicating delays at various stages. The Central Government also admitted delays due to the State Government's failure to provide timely comments.

3. Violation of Constitutional and Statutory Rights:
Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act mandate that detenus be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. The Court emphasized that the right to make a representation is both a constitutional and statutory right, and any delay in disposing of such representations violates these rights. The Court rejected the respondents' contention that the right to make a representation is not a constitutional right due to the absence of specified authorities in Article 22(5).

Legal Precedents and Observations:
The Court cited several precedents, including *Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingtiana & Ors.*, *Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu*, and others, to reinforce the principle that representations must be disposed of at the earliest. Unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained delays in the disposal of representations render the detention orders invalid.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the delays in the disposal of the petitioners' representations violated their rights under Article 22(5) and Section 8 of the Act. Consequently, the detention orders were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed. The Court reiterated its stance on the importance of timely disposal of representations to uphold the constitutional and statutory rights of detenus.