9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) contained in Annexure 'I' to the Writ application. 2. The short facts for disposal of this application are that on 9-5-1988 the petitioners were arrested in connection with Custom case No. 13 of 1988 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act No. 52 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the said case was pending in the court of the Presiding Officer, Special Court for trial of Economic offences, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to "the Special Court"). When the petitioners were in jail in connection with aforesaid substantive case an order of detention was passed on 7th of July, 1988 by the Joint Secretary under Section 3(I) of the Ordinance stating therein that it was necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usefully quote paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Union of India, which runs thus:- "With regard to para 2 of the Writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners sent a joint representation dated 27-7-1988 which was received on 1-8-1988. The authorities acted promptly and on the same day comments from the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna were called for and the Collector, in turn, obtained the comments, from the Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), Muzaffarpur. The comments dated 16-8-1988 of the Assistant Collector were received under the cover of Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna's letter dated 26-8-1988. The papers were processed immediately thereafter and put up to the Detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arpur are dated 16-8-1988 and according to the counter affidavit, the said comments were forwarded by the Collector, Customs (Preventive), Patna under his letter dated 26-8-1988 to the respondent - Union of India. It does not stand to reason as to how ten days would be taken in merely preparing and forwarding letter by the Collector, Customs (Preventive), Patna to the Union of India by which comments of the Assistant Collector, Customs (Preventive), Muzaffarpur were forwarded. No reason whatsoever has been assigned as to what the Collector, Customs (Preventive), Patna was doing for these full ten days. It was for the respondent - Union of India to justify the action of its officer in dealing with representation of the petitioners but they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980, when we find that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department, nor it is apparent why the Law Department had to be consulted at all. Again we fail to understand why the representation had to travel from table to table for six days before reaching the Chief Minister who was only authority to decide the representation. We may make it clear as we have done on numerous earlier occassions, that this court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
