9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner. 2. By our order dated 8th May, 1987, we had held that the writ petition succeeds for the reasons which we would give later. We had also set aside the order of detention and directed the petitioner to be released. We are now giving the reasons for the said order. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition lie within a fairly narrow compass. The petitioner was detained on 21st November, 1985 pursuant to an order of detention dated 3rd January, 1985 passed under sub-sections (1) (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1985 signed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab setting out that the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) (2) of Section 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detention and was pleased to order that the petitioner would continue to be detained in the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab for a period of two years from the date of his detention. The petitioner made a representation dated 18th December, 1986 through his Advocate addressed to the President of India for revocation of his detention. On 24th December, 1986 the petitioner made a representation to the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, against his detention. In this representation the petitioner, inter alia, contended that his detention was invalid as vital facts and materials that should have influenced the minds of the declaring authority and the detaining authority had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Union of India has not been joined as a party to the petition. The contention of the petitioner, on the basis of which we propose to dispose of this petition, is that he made a representation to the Government of Punjab on 18th December, 1986. That representation, as per admission of the Government of Punjab, was received on 14th January, 1987 and there was undue delay in disposing of that representation which was rejected on 26th February, 1987, as aforesaid. According to the petitioner there is no justification for this delay and on account of this delay the rights of the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been violated and the continued detention of the petitioner is not valid in law. 5. Coming to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s representation was rejected by the State Government. In the affidavit filed by the respondent in that case it was contended that the representation of the detenu made on 20th February, 1980 was received in the Home Department on 14th March, 1980. It has been pointed out by this Court in that case that :- Times out of number, this Court has emphasised that where the liberty of an individual is curtailed under a law of preventive detention, the representation, if any, made by him must be attended to, dealt with and considered with watchful care and reasonable promptitude lest the safeguards provided in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the statute concerned should be stultified and rendered meaningless . It was held that the functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at case that there was no explanation given by the Government as to why no action was taken on the representation of the detenu on 4th, 5th and 25th June, 1980 and what consideration was given by the Government to it from 13th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980 On that ground it was held that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and the detention become bad in law. 7. In the light of these decisions in the present case it must be held that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner, which was admittedly received by the Government on 14th January, 1987 and rejected as late as on 26th February, 1987, must be considered as inordinate delay in dealing with the representation. No explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the respondent that the delay in dealing with the representation had caused no prejudice to the petitioner, because it (is) admitted that he preferred a writ petition against his detention to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. In our view this submission also cannot sustain order of detention. It is true that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed, but we are informed that a special leave petition filed against that decision is pending in this Court. Moreover at the time when the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner had not made any representation to the State Government at all and hence the dismissal of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
