KANTILAL HIRJI SHAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal submission on the basis of which the detention order in this case has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was undue delay in the disposal of the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Government which inter alia states as under :

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the powers under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA were delegated to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and, therefore, the representation which was made by the detenu to the Central Government ought to have been placed to the Secretary who alone should have called for the comments from the sponsoring authority. It is contended that from the averments set out in the counter affidavit it appears that the representation was placed before some officer who called for the comments and that thereafter through a circuitous route it reached the Secretary on 12-1-2000 and on that day it was disposed of. It is contended that since the representation was not immediately placed before the Secretary, it cannot be treated to have been disposed of at the earliest and thus there was violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Reliance for this purpose is placed on the decision of this Court in R. Paulsamy v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 415 : (1999 AIR SCW 1707 : AIR 1999 SC 2004 : 1999 Cri LJ 2897) (para 8) in which it is stated inter alia as under :

(3.) Mr. Altafahmed, learned ASG appearing for the Central Government has contended that this Court as early as in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 443 : (AIR 7970 SC 1102) and Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 : (AIR 1974 SC 2192 : 1974 Lab 1c 1380) had laid down that the officers of the Government are limbs of the Government and under the Rules of Business file has to be routed through those officers which would not be of any consequence particularly as the comments in any case had to be called for in order to enable the Secretary of the Department to whom the powers were delegated under Section 11 to take an informed decision as to the detention of the detenu.