9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another contention that the entire material which influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate in passing the order of detention was not supplied to the petitioner is that according to the countered affidavit of the District Magistrate, nothing apart from what is stated in the grounds and the particulars was taken into account while passing the order of detention. Thus validity of the detention confirmed. - W.P.(C) 506 OF 1974 - - - Dated:- 27-1-1975 - M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ. JUDGMENT The petitioner, Skq. Salim, challenges by ,his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was passed on June 13, 1972 avowedly with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies aid services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and February 23, 1972. The former relates to a theft of underground copper cables and the latter to a theft of A.C.S.R. Conductors. The part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iso to section 3 (3), for more than 22 days unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. If the order is made or approved by the St-ate Government it must under section 3 (4) report the fact to the Central Government within 7 days. By section 10, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the appropriate Government shall within 30 days from the date of detention under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made, the representation if any made by, the detenu and in case where the order has been made by any of the officers specified under section 3(2), the report made by the officer under section 3(3). Section 11(1) requires the Advisory Board to submit its report to the appropriate Government within 10 weeks from, the date of detention. This time-schedule, evolved in order obviously to provide an expeditious opportunity at different levels for testing the justification of the detention order has to be observed scrupulously and its rigour cannot be relaxed on any facile assumption that what is good if done within 7, 12 or 30 days could as well be good if done, say, within 10, 15 or 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unavoidable delays, always remembering that the detaining authority must explain any long delay by pointing out circumstances due to which the, report to the State Government could not be made with the greatest promptitude. The dictionary meaning of 'forthwith' is : Immediately, at once, without delay or interval . A typical instance of the use of the word cited in the dictionary is : When a defendant is ordered to plead forthwith, he must plead within twenty-four hours (See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, Vol. I, p.740). This shows that the mandate that the report should be made forthwith does not require for its compliance a follow-up action at the split-second when the order of detention is made. There ought to be no laxity and laxity cannot be condoned in face of the command that the report shall be made forthwith. The legislative mandate, however, cannot be measured mathematically in terms of seconds, minutes and hours in order to find whether the report was made forthwith. Administrative exigencies may on occasions render a post- haste compliance impossible and therefore a reasonable allowance has to be made for unavoidable delays. This approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that there was no violation of the requirement that the report should be made 'forthwith', the Constitution Bench relied on Joglekar's case and on the following passage which occurred in Maxwell's with edition at page 341 : When a statute requires that something shall be done forthwith , or immediately or even instantly , it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it. Thus, 'forthwith' does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without avoidable or unreasonable delay. In Hillingdon London Borough Council v. Cutler([1968] 1 Q.B. 124, at P. 135), Harman L.J. while holding that the concept of 'forthwith' does not exclude the allowance of a reasonable time for doing the act, qualified his formulation by adding the rider provided that no harm is done. Applying that test, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the late making of the report. The State Government could approve the detention any time before June 25, the order having been pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of, detention. The short answer to this, contention is that the period of 7 days has to be reckoned from the date on which the State Government approved the order and not from the date on which the District Magistrate passed the order. If the order were made by the State Government, the report would have been required to be made to the Central Government within 7 days of the date of the order; but the order in the instant case was approved and not made by the State Government. It was then said that there was no proximity between the incidents leading to the detention and the order of detention as 'there was a gap of about 4 months in between. The explanation of the interval is that the petitioner was being prosecuted and an order of discharge had to be obtained on June 17, 1972. The order of detention was passed 4 days before the order of discharge was passed. It is next contended that the State Government having rejected the petitioner's representation the very next day that it was received, it must be held that it did not apply its mind to the representation. We do not suppose that the length of time which a decision takes necessarily reflects the care or openness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
