9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order of detention are well set out in the grounds of detention and hence we do not intend to proliferate the same. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the detenu assails the validity and legality of the detention order on three grounds, namely, (i) that there has been a considerable delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government; (ii) that certain vital and material documents which might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or other in drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu, were withheld by the sponsoring authority and (iii) that there has been unexplained delay in passing the impugned order from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission relied upon two decisions, namely - (1) Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Ors. and (2) Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors. . 7. In Rama Dhondu Borade's case, a representation was made by the detenu on September 26, 1988 and it was disposed of on October 27, 1988 and there was no proper explanation for the delay in considering the representation. Hence having regard to the facts of that case, the detention order therein was quashed. In that decision to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J) was a party, after referring various decisions of this Court regarding expeditious consideration of the representation of the detenu without delay, the following observation was made: True, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay might have occurred in transmitting the representation from Delhi to Cochin and thereafter the comments from Cochin to Delhi. On the face of the facts of the present case, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that there was unreasonable delay in consideration and disposal of the representation by the first respondent (Union of India). Therefore, the above two decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel are of no assistance to the facts of the present case. Hence, the first contention is rejected. 10. The second submission has been based on the ground that the reply to the show cause notice dated 13.9.90 made by his wife (against whom also a detention order has been passed) has not been placed before the detaining authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
