SATPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution by one Sat Pal seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the order of detention passed by the State Government of Punjab on May 12, 1981, under sub-sec. (1) of See. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The question at issue is whether the failure of the State Government of Punjab to forward the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act with reasonable despatch renders his continued detention invalid.

(2.) It appears that the detenu was apprehended on June 28, 1981, and served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention as well as with copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. On July 4, 1981, while the detenu was under detention his counsel Shri Herjinder Singh addressed a registered letter to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf of the detenu, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab Department of Home, Chandigarh. and the other endorsed to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. The Superintendent was requested by the said letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government. after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon. On July 6, 1981, the two representations were received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, and on the 7th he forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh, with an endorsement that one of them be forwarded to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. On the next day, i.e. July 8, 1981, the two representations, one addressed to the State Government, and the other endorsed to the Central Government, were received in the Home Department. On July 24, 1981, the State Government rejected the representation made by the detenu and thereafter forwarded it to the Advisory Board, which by its report dated July 31, 1981, considered the representation and rejected it. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention on Aug. 6, 1981. It. however, appears that the representation made by the petitioner to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act, was not forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government till September 23, 1981.

(3.) In his counter-affidavit dated Sep. 8. 1981. Shri N. I. Ramanathan, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, stated that no representation from the detenu relating to his detention had been received by the Central Government and, as such, the question of any delay in its disposal did not arise. It, therefore, appears that till Sep. 8. 1981, the representation endorsed to the Central Government remained unattended to in the Punjab Secretariat. This was indeed a serious lapse on the Part of the State Government, and it is quite evident that it has no explanation to offer. In his counter-affidavit, Shri Kuldip Singh Janjua, IAS, Joint Secretary to the State Government of Punjab, Home Department, has not, controverted the allegation made by the detenu that his counsel had forwarded two copies of the representation, one addressed to the State Government and the other to the Central Government, with request for the onward transmission of the other representation to the Central Government. He merely adverts to the fact that the State Government had taken all the necessary steps to deal with the representation made by the detenu to it. There is no explanation given for not forwarding the other representation to the Central Government.