SAKEENAL BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the Preventive Detention Order dated 7-10-95 of Zalim Shah, Ibrahim Raja Mohammad, Ismail Sheik Dawood, Khader Moideen Nagoor Gani, and Khadar Batcha Kararuddin, from whom foreign currency worth Rs. 1,61,95,908/- was recovered is sought to be quashed solely on the ground of non-consideration of their representations.

(2.) In their reply the Respondent-State of Karnataka have denied the receipt of any representation allegedly sent on behalf of the detenues. However, respondent-2, Union of India, have acknowledged the receipt of representation but submitted that the same could not be decided on account of its being in Tamil language. It is contended that considerable time was consumed in obtaining the translation of the representation from the appropriate authorities. In W.P. No. 75/1 996 and 76/1996 the representation of the detenus is stated to have been received on 15-1-1996 which was allegedly sent to the authorities for getting it translated into english. The translation in the aforesaid cases is reported to have been received on 31-5-96. Thereafter the comments were called from the sponsoring authority on 5-6-1996. The comments are stated to have been received on 17-6-96 and the representation rejected on 21-6-1996. In W.P. No. 78/1996 representation is shown to have been received on 20-21996 and its translation obtained on 31-5-96. After getting the comments the said representation is alleged to have been rejected on 21-6-96. The representation in respect to the detenue in W.P. No. 79/1996 is shown to have been received on 17-1-1996 and its English translation on 31-596. The said representation is shown to have been rejected on 21-6-96. So far as detenue in W.P. No. 77/1996 is concerned it is submitted that the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India did not receive any representation till 8-7-96. However, a representation is stated to have been received on 25-7-96, which was rejected on 19-8-96.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a memo in this Court along with RPAD postal receipt of having despatched the representation to respondents 1 and 2 on 3-12-1995. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties it is established that the representations on behalf of the detenus undisputably were filed before the respondent 2 prior to 20-2-1996 which were not disposed of till 21-6-1996. The explanation tendered by the respondents is that as the representations filed were in Tamil, time was consumed in getting the same translated through official agency to English. The details of the time consumed for getting the translation within a period ranging more than five months has not at all been explained. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent 2 is self-contradictory. In their replies filed in the writ petitions the respondent 2 has submitted, "all representations have been replied immediately giving all the clarifications sought for by the detenu." The contradictory plea raised before us cannot be reconciled. On account of inaction of some officials of the respondent 2 the detenus who are guilty of indulging in smuggling of foreign currency of worth Rs. 1,61,95,908/- are required to be set at liberty. For the fault of the officials of respondent 2 the detenus cannot be deprived of the constitutional guarantees as mandated under Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The respondent 2 would be well advised to ascertain the lapses, omissions, and negligence of its officials and take appropriate actions against them.