SUDHIR KUMAR DHINGRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Dhingra, has challenged his detention order dated 20.5.1992 purported to have been passed under Section 3[ 1] read with section 2[f] of COFEPOSA by filing this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has taken several grounds in this writ petition for the quashment of the impugned detention order,namely, the non-supply of the relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority; relying upon of irrelevant documents in passing the detention order and the delay in passing of the detention order. But much stress has been laid on the ground of non supply of the relevant documents depriving him his right of making a purposeful representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the detaining authority. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in CrI.W.P. Nos. 324 & 325 of 1986 - titled M.M. Yusuf vs. Union of India and Others decided on 17.3.1987,the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his representation dated 7.5.93 the petitioner had requested for the supply of the documents referred to and stated in the representation, but these documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The Advisory Board meeting was fixed for 28.5.93 and the documents were not supplied till that date. The representation was rejected on 28.5.93 and the result was communicated to him on 29.5.93 i.e. after the hearing of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed that the Administrator was pleased to direct supply of all the documents, but in spite of clear order, these documents have not been supplied to the petitioner on or before the Advisory Board meeting and,till the filing of this petition, and therefore, this has frustrated the right of the petitioner to make an effective and purposeful representation before the Advisory Board and to the Central Government. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise there is a long delay in supply of these documents to the petitioner and as such the detentionof the petitioner is illegal and violative of Article22[5]of the Constitution of India. He further argued that there is a long delay in consideration of the representation made by the petitioner on 7.5.93 to the Administrator. The said representation ought to have been considered before the Advisory Board meeting, but the Administrator having done it after the Advisory Board meeting on 29.5.93, is violative of-Article 22 [5] of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner had made a representation to the Central Government on 7.5.93 the rejection of the said representa- tion was communicated to the petitioner only on 29.5.93, where also it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner be supplied copies of the documents, but in spite of demand and in spite of directions or the Central Government the same has not been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore,this is violative of Articles 14 and 22[5] of theConstitution of India making the detention illegal. He argued that in any case, there is a long delay in consideration of the said representation and long delay in supply of the documents and it makes the detention order illegal and violative of Article 22 [5] of the Constitution ofindia. Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had made a representation to the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board. The said representation has not been considered by the appropriate Government till date, depriving him of his right to represent before the Advisory Board and it is also violative of Article 22 [5] of the Constitution ofindia.