SANJEEV MODY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 30th of March 1987 passed by Mr. Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Inda under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended. This detention order was made with a view to preventing the detenu Sanjeev Mody from smuggling goods and is based on the incident dated 22-2-1987 when the petitioner was allegedly brought back from the aircraft of the British Airliner and was found carrying Indian currency amounting to Rs. 21,40,000, which he was allegedly trying to smuggle out of the country.

(2.) The detention order is being challenged on a variety of grounds. Mr. Mittal, arguing the case of the petitioner urged that there has been unexplained and avoidable delay in the consideration of the representation of the petitioner, which the petitioner had made on 17th of July, 1987 against the order of detention. According to him the representation was considered and rejected only on 19th of August, 1987 though intimation about it was conveyed to the petitioner on 26th of August, 1987. The other contention of Mr. Mittal is that some material and relevant document like flight coupon has been suppressed from the detaining authority thereby vitiated his satisfaction. Mr. Mittal's contention seems to be that flight coupons were before the detaining authority. He could have compared it with the entries on the counter-foil of the ticket and could have noticed the discrepancies therein which might have affected the satisfaction of the detaining authority this way or the other. Third contention urged by Mr. Mittal is that even though the grounds of detention show that the detaining authority has taken into account the flight manifest air ticket, flight coupon, bail application, medical report of the petitioner and the baggage claim tag. These documents were not supplied to him despite a representation in this regard and they were supplied to him only when on 21st of August, after his representation was dismissed and rejected on 19th of August, 1987.

(3.) Let me, therefore, take the first contention of Mr. Mittal for consideration. The admitted position is that the petitioner drafted the representation on 17th July, 1987 which was delivered to the Superintendent of Jail on 20-7-1987. It was only rejected on 19th of August, 1987 though the intimation about its rejection was given to the detenu on 26th of August, 1987. Now before adverting to the explanation tendered by the respondents in their counter affidavit I would like to make it clear that the admitted legal position is that the representation of the detenu must be considered without unnecessary delay. The Supreme Court says that it has to be so as the liberty of a citizen is at stake and no allowance can be granted to the detaining authority forbeing careless or showing any indifference to the consideration of the representation of the detenu. The government therefore, is constitutionally bound to consider the repre- sentation as expeditiously as possible. The legal position further is that there can be no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes delay. This aspect has to be examined and adjudged in the light of the facts of each particular case.