HOUSSIN KHALAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging an order of detention under the COFEPOSA dated 10.11.1993. The 'petitioner sent a representation dated 03.12.1993 and the same was rejected on 04.01.1994 by the Central Government. It is contended that there is delay in disposal of representation by 30 days in all at various stages. It is contended that a second representation dated 20.01.94 was made and it took 39 days to be considered and rejected. A contention is raised that the representation dated 03.12.93 is disposed of beyond II weeks. It is also argued that the confessional statement is placed before the Central Government, but not the retraction.

(2.) In our view, none of these contention has any force. Firstly, the representation dated 03.12.93 was received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 06.12.93 and on the same day, para wise remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority. The said comments were received from the sponsoring authority on 17.12.93 Eighteenth and nineteenth were holidays and the representation was rejected on 4th January, 1994. Learned counsel wanted to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in lcchu Devi Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 198) to say that the delay in disposal of the representation has vitiated the detention. It must be noted that the total time for disposal of the representation at various stages cannot be a basis for alleging unreasonable delay. The necessary steps in the consideration of the rep resentation such as calling for remarks from the sponsoring authority and then receiving them are part of the process. On the facts of the case, we are unable to hold that the delay is unreasonable.

(3.) So far as the second contention is concerned, it is admitted that the second representation dated 20.01.94 did not contain anything new from the earlier one. We are unable to hold that any prejudice was caused. In fact, a second repre- sentation without new facts has no bearing on the validity of the detention. The allegation regarding delay beyond 11 weeks is not factually correct. The 11 weeks time under Section 8 is for the Advisory Board to submit its report and we find that the detention order is of 10.11.93, the delay has to be counted from that date. In November, it is 20 days, in December, it is 31 days, and the record shows that the Board sent its report on 25.01.94 and not on 02.02.94 as alleged by the petitioner. We have actually looked into these dated from the report. Therefore, the tune taken is 75 days and is well within the II weeks period mentioned is Section 8.