1989 (5) TMI 315 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the detention order.
2. Inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality and Validity of the Detention Order
The detenu challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980, read with clause 4 of the National Security (Conditions of Detention) (Maharashtra) Order, 1980. The detenu was involved in three incidents:
1. On 9.4.1988, the detenu and his associate attacked Laxman Devsingh Gurkha, causing injury with a sword. A case was registered u/s 324 and 114 IPC.
2. On 10.4.1988, the detenu demanded money at the point of choppers from Banwarilal Bhagirath and Babulal Mistry. A complaint was registered u/s 384 and 114 IPC.
3. On 1.8.1988, the detenu was found in possession of a Rampuri knife, leading to a case u/r LAC No. 2912/88 under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

The detaining authority, satisfied that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to public order, passed the detention order. The detenu's writ petition challenging this order was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering the Representation
The appellant's counsel argued that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay by the third respondent (Union of India) in considering the detenu's representation dated 26.9.88, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The representation was made to both the State and Central Governments. The third respondent sought further information from the State Government on 3.10.1988, which was received on 17.10.88. The representation was rejected on 27.10.88, and the decision was communicated on 31.10.88. The delay from 17.10.88 to 27.10.88 was partly due to holidays, but no explanation was provided for the delay on working days.

The Court referred to several precedents emphasizing the constitutional obligation to consider a detenu's representation expeditiously. The delay of 32 days in this case was deemed inordinate and unreasonable, with the explanation provided by the third respondent found unsatisfactory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned detention order due to the breach of the constitutional obligation u/s Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.