9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal 2. Delay in Considering the Representation Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal: The primary issue raised by the respondent was the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the appeal arises from an order made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and therefore, no Letters Patent Appeal lies. The respondent cited a previous decision where it was held that such appeals are incompetent under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as Letters Patent Appeals lie only against judgments rendered in civil proceedings. The court, however, distinguished the nature of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was noted that such petitions, even if they seek a writ of Habeas Corpus, are not necessarily criminal in nature. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Umaji Keshao Meshram, which clarified that an intra-court appeal is maintainable if such a right is provided in the charter of the High Court. The court emphasized that Article 226 creates a constitutional jurisdiction, which is original and cannot be classified strictly as criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court overruled the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the appeal. 2. Delay in Considering the Representation: The petitioner contended that there was an unexplained delay in considering his representations, which violated his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner had sent multiple representations, and the delay in their consideration was not adequately explained by the respondents. The court examined the timeline of events: - The first representation dated 3/5/1993 was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the Cofeposa Unit on 10/5/1993. - Comments on this representation were called on 11/5/1993 but were furnished only on 20/5/1993. - The case was processed and submitted to the Joint Secretary on 31/5/1993, with a delay of 8 days after excluding holidays. The court noted that the total delay of 23 days remained unexplained. The respondents failed to file a counter-affidavit to the writ petition and did not provide satisfactory explanations for the delays in their reply affidavit. The court highlighted that the right to expeditious disposal of representations is a fundamental right under Article 22(5), and any unexplained delay violates this constitutional mandate. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that the requirement to consider representations expeditiously is a constitutional obligation. Delays due to negligence, callous inaction, or avoidable administrative reasons are not acceptable. The court concluded that the unexplained delay in the instant case rendered the continued detention of the petitioner illegal. Conclusion: The court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, directing the immediate release of the petitioner unless he was required to be detained under any other order or proceedings. The judgment underscores the importance of timely consideration of representations in detention cases and reaffirms the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(5).
|
