9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined under an order dated April 3, 1979, issued under Section 391) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act is sought to be quashed. 2. Admittedly the case of the detenu was considered by the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, who passed the detention order acting as the specially empowered officer under Section 3 of the Act. On April 20, 1979 a rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s representation ought to have been considered and rejected by the detaining authority itself, namely, by the Chief Secretary but the same had been straight away considered and rejected by the Administrator, who under Section 2(f) of the Act was the State Government for the union Territory, thus depriving the detenu of his remedy to approach the administrator as a higher authority after the reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u to approach the State Government for revocation of the order and failing that it is open to him to approach the Central Government to get the detention order revoked. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed in reply by one Mr. W. C. Khambra, Under-Secretary, Home Department, Delhi Administration, it has been categorically stated thus The said representation was duly considered after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reject it. The original files which were produced before us by counsel for the respondents also confirm the aforesaid position. From the nothings in the file it appears clear that the Chief Secretary had on May 9, 1979 called for advice and comments of the Secretary of Law and Justice in the matter and on receipt of those comments the Chief Secretary on May 21, 1979 made an endorsement under sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Chief Secretary before us taking that he had rejected the representation. The representation was, therefore, not rejected by the detaining authority and as such the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), as interpreted by this Court, cannot be said to have been strictly observed or complied with. The continued detention of the detenu was clearly illegal and deserves to be quas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
