BANARASI DASS BHANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition Banarsi Dass Bhandari. petitioner, prays for the quashing of the order of detention and the continued detention of his brother. Sat Pal Bhandari, who has been detained by the order of detention dated January 19, 1988 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 2, under S.3(1) read with S.2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). As per the grounds of detantion on October 15, 1987 an information was received that the detenu, Sat Pal Bhandari, and his son Devinder Kumar had arranged to take delivery of some foreign marked gold at the premises No. 56, State Bank Colony, G.T. Road, Delhi. Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search of that premises. Nothing incriminating was, however, recovered. Soon thereafter one Hira Lal was found to have come there in a Maruti car. It was found that Hira Lal had concealed 220 foreign marked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each in a special davity of the car. These gold biscuits were believed to have been illegally imported in India. A search of the residential premises of the petitioner resulted in the recovery and seizure of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 11,07,000 believed to be the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold. It was noticed that the gold was to be sold in the Indian market through Ravinder Kumar Bhandari, son of the detenu. The statements of Ravinder Kumar Bhandari and the detenu, Sat Pal Bhandari, were recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act. The detenu, among others, stated that the said 220 gold biscuits were brought by Hira Lal for him and his son Ravinder Kumar who used to distribute foreign marked gold biscuits according to the instructions received from one Puran Singh Pehalwan or. telephone. The detenu was arrested on October 15, 1987 itself and was later remanded to judicial custody under S. 135 of the Customs Act. The detention order passed on January 19, 1988 was served on the detenu in the Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi on January 21, 1988. The declaration under S. 9(1) of the Act was made against the detenu by respondent No. 3 on February 4,1988.

(2.) . The order of detention, the continued detention and the declaration under S.9 (1) are challenged on a number of grounds as taken in the petition. I may say at the very outset that the petition is bound to be accepted on the ground that .there has been a violation of the mandatory requirement of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India 'communicating' the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents accompanying the same. The admitted position is that the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents v/ere supplied to the detenu in English and in Hindi. According to the detenu he knows only Urdu language and can read and write the same. The order of detention alongwith the grounds of detention and the documents were not supplied to him in Urdu language despite the detenu having informed the detaining authority that he did not know either of the two languages, namely English and Hindi and that he knows only Urdu language, which he can read and write and that the grounds of detention and the documents should be supplied to him in Urdu language and script. It has been stated in the petition that the detenu wrote a letter to the detaining authority on February 9, 1988 requesting that he may be supplied the detention order, the grounds of detention and the accompanying documents in Urdu language only, which he knew and which he could read and write to enable him to make an effective and purposeful representation (Annexure 'C'), but that no reply to the same was received from the detaining authority till February 19, 1988, where on the detenu made an ineffective representation to the detaining authority being handicapped in making the same for want of due communication of the grounds of detention and the accompanying documents. In this representation also the detenu stated that he did not know English or Hindi, but knew Urdu; that he had submitted an application dated February 9, 1988 to the detaining authority requesting for the supply of the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents in Urdu language which he can read and write to the knowledge of the DRI Officer; but that they have not been supplied to him till then. It was stated that he was thus very much handicapped in making an effective representation. He, however, also made therein his submissions against the order of detention and his continued detention. The detenu then by the letter dated March 1, 1988 (Annexure 'F') of the Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, Delhi was informed that his representation dated February 22, 1988 has been considered by the Administrator, but the same was rejected. The detenu thereafter filed the present petition in the Court on March 14, 1988.

(3.) . Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the detenu knew only Urdu language and he did not know either English or Hindi and therefore, the only way to communicate the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents accompanying them was to supply them in Urdu language and script within five days of the date of service of the order of detention, or, in any case, within fifteen days of the service of the order of detention for reasons to be recorded therefor and that the failure to supply the order of detention etc. in Urdu language and script within the aforesaid period amounted to a violation of the mandatory provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. It was next submitted by Mr. Harjinder Singh that, in any case, when the detenu brought to the notice of the detaining authority by his letter dated February 9, 1988 that he knew only Urdu language and that the order of detention be supplied to him in Urdu language and script) the detaining authority then ought to have supplied the same to the detenu within a reasonable time thereof; but that the detaining authority did not supply them even then or even till the date on which final arguments were heard in this petition. It is contended that there has thus been a clear violaion of the requirements of the mandatory provisions of Art.22(5) of the Constitution.