RUMANA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, Rumana Begum, wife of Mohammed Ishaq, seeks special leave to appeal to this court from the order dated 22/04/1992 of the High court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing her Writ Petition No. 4072 of 1992 assailing her husband's detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act). We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.

(2.) On 30/08/1991, the appellant's husband was detained pursuant to the order of detention made by secretary to government, government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Hyderabad, in ex- ercise of powers under Section 3 (1 of the Act. This detention was challenged before the High court on grounds, inter alia, that the representation made by the detenu to the governor of Andhra Pradesh on 6/10/1991 for the revocation of the order of detention was not disposed of expeditiously, but was delayed by over 174 days in transmitting the representation to the State government and the representation came to be disposed of only on 7/04/1992. The appellant urged that the representation made to the Govmor is for all intents and purposes one made to the State government. The delay in considering and disposing of the representation it was alleged violated the detenu's constitutional and legal rights which require the representation to be considered and disposed of with reasonable despatch. The Detaining Authority, however, contested the writ petition and took the stand that the representation dated 6/10/1991 was not eligible to betreated as a statutory representation or as one made in exercise of the constitutional rights, but ought to be considered as a mere non-statutory representation in view of the fact that, as urged by the Detaining Authority, there were three earlier representations made by the detenu which had been dealt with and disposed of expeditiously by the appropriate authority. It was also urged that the representation made to the governor was really drawing a red herring across the path as both the detenu and his wife knew that the representation had to be addressed to the Chief secretary to government and that the representation submitted to the governor was a subterfuge resorted to by the detenu.

(3.) The contentions urged did not commend themselves to the High court. The High court said: