A ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. STATE OF DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the detention order dated 23.3.1990 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by respondent No.2 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to augmentation of the foreign exchange. In pursuant to this order the petitioner was detained on 7.6.1990.

(2.) In this writ petition, which has been filed challenging the aforesaid detention order, a number of contentions have been raised but for the view, which I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss all of them.

(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention is vitiated because there is long and unexplained delay of fifteen days on the part of the concerned authority in forwarding the Memorandum dated 11.7.1990 vide which the representation of the detenu dated 20.6.1990 was rejected. He drew my attention to ground No. XIV in the writ petition in which this fact has been specifically mentioned attacking the detention order. According to the learned counsel, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, no explanation of undue delay has been given, except that the file was received on 11.7.1990 and the Memorandum rejecting the representation was issued on the same date. This is no proper explanation for the undue delay of fifteen days. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mahinder Singh Arora v. Union of India, Cri Writ No. 305/89, decided on 7.9.1989, in support of his contention that it is imperative on the part of the concerned authorities to discharge the obligation of dealing with the transit of decision With all reasonable promptness and diligence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have miserably failed to come up to the expectations of law laid down in this regard. On this ground alone, learned counsel submitted that- the detention order is liable to be quashed.