9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the High Court are set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, M. Balakrishnan at liberty, if not otherwise required to be detained in any other case. - 767/94 - - - Dated:- 8-11-1994 - J.S. Verma, K.S. Paripoornan and S.B. Majumdar, JJ. [Judgment per : S.B. Majumdar, J.]. Special leave granted. 2. By an earlier order of this Court notice was issued in this matter for final disposal and accordingly we have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The appellant is wife of one M. Balakrishnan who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by Joint Secretary of Tamil Nadu in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of COFEPOSA Act. The order of his detention is dated 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware of the need for clear-cut representation while in this case the representation was vague. The delay in sending the said representation to the Central Government had no fatal consequences on the continued detention of the detenu. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the reasoning adopted by the High Court is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the respondents State of Tamil Nadu as well as the Union of India on the other hand submitted that on the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the constitutional right of detenu under Art. 22(5) was violated in any manner. 5. In order to resolve this controversy it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. As stated earlier the detenu was taken i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a letter was received along with nine copies of representation by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras on 4th May, 1994. A mere look at the letter shows that the representation was being sent as per the instruction of the detenu and the jailor was requested to send the representation to the persons mentioned in the grounds immediately. It becomes, therefore, clear that a request was made by the appellant on behalf of the detenu as early as on 4th May, 1994 to send the representation not only to the State Government but also to the Central Government as mentioned in the grounds of detention, to which we have made a reference earlier. To recapitulate, the grounds of detention made it clear that the detenu had a right to make a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to such a rigorous scrutiny as is done in the case of a delay caused by the appropriate Government, namely the detaining authority. The Central Government should consider the representation with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition depends upon 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 does not cover the delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and unduly protracted procrastination. From the explanation given in that case for the delay of one month and five days on the part of the Central Government in disposal of the representation, it was clear that the representation was considered most expeditiously and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible. On the facts of the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely gets attracted. So far as the decision of this Court in Jaiprakash s case (supra) is concerned, we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the decision could not be held to be applicable. The fact that the detenu was an Advocate in the present case cannot make any difference to the applicability of the ratio of the aforesaid decision. As in Jaiprakash s case so in the present case, the appellant furnished nine copies of the representation to the jailor. Under these circumstances, the jailor was bound to send one copy to the Central Government and he did not do so and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case the ratio of the decision of this Court in Jaiprakash s case has squarely got attracted. 7. One additional aspect of the matter also requires to be noted. It is not in dispute between the parties that one copy of the representation was sent by the jailor to the State Government and which also reached the Advisory Board on 10th May, 1994. The Advisory Board considered the representation and gave its opinion in favour of detention on 22nd June, 1994. Even thereafter no attempt was made by anyone to send the representation to the Central Government till it reached it after a month. 8. For all these reasons, therefore, it must be held that the constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5) has got violated on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
