9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible. Allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court, quash the impugned detention order and direct the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the Central Prison, Bombay to the detaining authority and the Central Government and he received the order of rejection dated 19th July, 1988 on 26th July, 1988 i.e. after a period of 40 days from the date of making his representation. A contention based on the delay of 40 days in the disposal of the representation was advanced before the High Court which for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 3 of its judgment based on the explanation given in the subsequent return dated 5th August, 1988 filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India had rejected the same though was not satisfied with the earlier return of the detaining authority. The explanation given in the subsequent return recites that the representation fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communication of the representation to the Government. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 17-3-1989 sworn by the Superintendent of Prisons, Bombay was filed attempting to explain the delay that had occasioned in transmitting the representation. The explanation reads thus :- "I say that 16-6-1988 is the date of receipt of the detenu's representation and the said representation was forwarded to the Ministry on 22-6-1988. Further I have to submit that on 19th June, 1988 there was a holiday being Sunday." From the above explanation, it is clear that though the detenu had handed over the representation to Superintendent of Central Prison on 16-6-1988, the latter has callously ignored it and left the same unattended for a period of 7 days and forw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deteny has to be disposed of with reasonable expedition but it must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'reasonable expedition' is explained in Subir Ahmed v. Union of India W{) (3) SCC 295 as follows :- "What is 'reasonable expedition' is a question depending on the circumstances of the particular case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time can be laid down. But it certainly docs not cover the delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and unduly protracted procrastination." See also Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others 1982 (2) SCC 43 and Raisuddin Alias Bubu Tamchi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 1983 (4) SCC 537. 6. Thus when it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government which enjoys the power of revoking the detention order. The intermediary authoritites who are communicating authorities have also to move with an amount of promptitude so that the statutory guarantee of affording earliest opportunity of making the representation and the same reaching the Government is translated into action. The corresponding obligation of the State to consider the representation cannot be whittled down by merely saying that much time was lost in the transit. If the Government enacts a law like the present Act empowering certain authorities to make the detention order and also simultaneously makes a statutory provision of affording the earliest opportunity to the detenu to make his representation against his det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
