1990 (11) TMI 160 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu against his detention.
2. Whether the delay in considering the representation renders the detention impermissible and invalid under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a Writ Petition challenging the detention of the petitioner under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu had made a representation against his detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The primary issue raised was the delay in the consideration and disposal of this representation, which the detenu argued vitiated his continued detention.

2. The detenu's representation was made on 29th March, 1990, but it was considered and rejected by the Competent Authority only on 22nd May, 1990, resulting in a delay of about 1 month and 24 days. The respondents attempted to explain this delay by stating that comments were sought from the Sponsoring Authority, leading to a chain of delays in obtaining necessary feedback. However, the specific delay of 19 days on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in providing comments was left unexplained.

3. The court emphasized the importance of expeditiously considering detenus' representations, citing a Supreme Court ruling that highlighted the need to explain any delays satisfactorily. The court referenced a similar case where the Supreme Court ruled that unexplained delays in considering representations render continued detention impermissible and invalid under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

4. Given the unexplained delay of 19 days in this case, similar to the precedent cited, the court concluded that the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(5) had been infringed. Consequently, the court accepted the petition, quashed the detention order, and ordered the detenu's immediate release if not required in any other case.

5. The judgment underscores the significance of promptly addressing detenus' representations to uphold their constitutional rights and avoid invalidating detention orders due to unexplained delays in the review process.