9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as with copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. On July 4, 1981, while the detenu was under detention his counsel Shri Herjinder Singh addressed a registered letter to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf the detenu, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary," State Government of Punjab, Department of Home, Chandigarh, and the other endorsed to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. The Superintendent was requested by the said letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government, after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon. On July 6, 1981, the two representations were received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar. and on the 7th, he forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh, with an endorsement that one of them be forwarded to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 23, 1981, forwarded the copy of the representation endorsed to the Central Government and that it was received in the Ministry of Finance on September 24, 1981. The said representation was considered by the Central Government and rejected on September 28, 1981. It is, therefore, quite clear that there was no delay on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the representation. The question is whether the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in not forwarding the representation till September 23, 1981, i.e. for a period of 2 months and 15 days, renders the continued detention invalid. 5. The two questions canvassed in the petitions are : (1) Whether there was any duty cast on the State Government to toward to the Central Government the representation for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. It is urged that the detenu has no right to simultaneously make a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and an application for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act; (2) Whether the power of revocation of an order of detention by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... autonomy in spheres assigned to them in the Constitution itself. The component States are not merely delegates or agents of the federal government. Both federal and State Governments draw their authority from the same source, the Constitution. The conferment of executive power on the States in relation to a subject with respect to which the Legislatures of the States have no power to make a law under Article 258(2) must necessarily be subject to the administrative control of the Union under Articles 256 and 257(1), to the giving of such directions to the States as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. 8. The constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5) enjoin that where the detenu makes simultaneously a representation to the detaining authority as well as an application for revocation under Section 11 of the Act, they must both be dealt with by the appropriate governments at the same time, and there is no question of any conflict of jurisdiction. To illustrate, if the Central Government were to revoke an order of detention under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, there would be no representation for the State Government to consider, or to refer to the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a representation is made, the State Government has the corresponding duty to forward it to the Central Government for necessary action. 11. The making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Act is, therefore, part of the constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Article 22(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8(a) of the Act, Parliament has, in its wisdom, enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the State Government had no duty to forward the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. The State Government had, therefore, no business in withholding the representation endorsed to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act for a period of 2 months and 15 days. In Rattan Singh v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case, the representation made by the detenu was forwarded to the Central Government on September 23, 1981, i.e., after a lapse of 2 months and 15 days. The Central Government acted with great promptitude in dealing with the representation and found no ground to interfere with the order of detention. Shri N.I. Ramanathan, Undersecretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, has revealed that the copy of the representation endorsed to the Central Government was received in the Ministry of Finance on September 24, 1981. The said representation was considered by the Central Government and rejected on September 28, 1981. 12. In the present case, there was, therefore, no denial of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act, unlike in Rattan Singh's case (supra) There is nothing but the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government and that by itself is not sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. The detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the State Government, i.e., the detaining authority as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
