1991 (1) TMI 444 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents in the original language.
2. Non-supply of documents by the detaining authority.
3. Delay in supplying documents.
4. Omission of the term "engaging" in the grounds of detention.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of documents in the original language:
The detenu's counsel argued that 21 documents relied upon in the grounds of detention were not supplied in the original language in which they were recorded. The fact of non-supply was not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. The court held that the impugned order of detention is vitiated due to this non-supply, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Icchu Devi v. Union of India, [1981]1SCR640*.

2. Non-supply of documents by the detaining authority:
It was contended that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, sought to supply the 21 documents to the detenu on 23-11-1990, which contravened Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in *Icchu Devi's case* held that the grounds of detention include all documents relied upon. Since the documents were not supplied by the detaining authority but by the sponsoring authority, there was a breach of Article 22(5).

3. Delay in supplying documents:
The court considered the argument that even if the documents were supplied on behalf of the detaining authority, they were not provided within the time specified in Section 3(1) of the Act. Subsection (3) of Section 3 mandates that the grounds of detention, including documents, should be served within five days, and in exceptional circumstances, not later than fifteen days. The documents were supplied on 23-11-1990, long after the specified period, without any exceptional reasons recorded or communicated. This delay vitiated the detention order.

4. Omission of the term "engaging" in the grounds of detention:
The detenu's counsel argued that the order of detention recited items (iii) and (iv) of Clause (1) of Section 3 of the Act but omitted the term "engaging." The court found it unnecessary to address this ground as the detention order was already vitiated for the other reasons mentioned.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition:
The respondent's counsel argued that the writ petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing *State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, [1985]3SCR598*. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that the impugned order of detention was challenged on grounds of breach of constitutional requirements under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioner's representation seeking the transfer of the detenu was submitted from Hyderabad, and the rejection of this representation was communicated to her at Hyderabad. Therefore, part of the cause of action arose in Hyderabad, giving the court jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court held that the detenu has the right to socialize with family members, and the unjust rejection of the petitioner's representation without assigning reasons amounted to a deprivation of a valuable right under Article 21. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the release of the detenu. The writ petition was allowed.