1992 (5) TMI 24 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
2. Non-consideration of representation by the Detaining Authority.
3. Supply of illegible photostat copies of documents.
4. Variance between English and Hindi versions of the detention order.
5. Timing and dispatch of document No. 108.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:
The detenus challenged their detention on the grounds that they were not afforded the earliest opportunity to make an effective representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the representation made by the detenus on 6-4-1992 was not decided upon, which is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(5). The Supreme Court has held that any representation made by a detenu must be considered expeditiously and any delay in this regard renders the detention order invalid.

2. Non-consideration of Representation by the Detaining Authority:
The detenus argued that their representation against the detention order was not considered by the Detaining Authority. The Court found that the representation dated 6-4-1992 was not decided upon, and the response from the Ministry of Finance dated 23-4-1992 did not address the request for release. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the failure to decide on a detenu's representation expeditiously is a violation of constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.

3. Supply of Illegible Photostat Copies of Documents:
The detenus contended that the photostat copies of the documents supplied to them were mostly illegible, amounting to non-supply of material documents. The Court examined the documents and found that most of them were legible, though some required effort to read. The Court concluded that there was no substantial force in this argument, as the majority of the copies were readable.

4. Variance Between English and Hindi Versions of the Detention Order:
The detenus argued that there was a variance between the English and Hindi versions of the detention order, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority. The Court did not find this argument substantial enough to affect the legality of the detention order, as the primary grounds for quashing the order were based on other more significant issues.

5. Timing and Dispatch of Document No. 108:
The detenus raised concerns about the timing and dispatch of document No. 108, which was dated 13-3-1992 and allegedly dispatched on the same day. They argued that it was improbable for the document to reach Delhi from Indore on the same day. The Court noted that no satisfactory explanation was provided for this discrepancy, but refrained from giving a definitive finding on this issue due to the lack of original records. However, this unexplained fact did cast doubt on the Detaining Authority's application of mind.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the detention orders against the detenus could not be sustained due to the non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The failure to decide on the representation expeditiously and the denial of the opportunity to meet their lawyer were significant violations. Consequently, the detention orders were quashed, and the detenus were ordered to be set at liberty if not required for any other offence.