KISHORE KUMAR MUNDHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought linker Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedre seeking quashment of detention order dated September 1. 1988, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). The petitioner was alleged to have indulged in unauthorised compensatory payments to different persons in India under instructions of resident of Bangladesh. I need not refer to tlie facts in detail or to all the grounds urged before me because the writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.

(2.) It has been pleaded in para 20 of the writ petition and in ground No. 1 that the petitioner had made representation dated November 7, 1988, which was delivered at the President's Secretariat but the same came to be rejected on November 30, 1988 and comnunication regarding the rejection of the representation was received by the petitioner on December 12, 1988. It is pleaded that there had occurred undue and unexplained delay in considering the said representation of the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the said representation of the petitioner had not been considered before the detention order was confirmed by the Central Government. Admittedly the detention order was confirmed by the Central Government on November 21, 1988. In the counter filed by Mr. K. L. Verma, the detainong authority, it has been pleaded that his representation was received from the President's Secretariat vide letter dated November 15, 1988, in COFEPOSA Unit on November 17, 1988. It was not pleaded in this particular para 20 of the counter-affidavit that this particular representation dated November 7, 1988, was similar to the representation which was made by the detenu to the Central Government and which was dated September 30, 1988. At any rate, copies of the two representations in question have been filed alongwith the writ petition, the first one appears at page starting from 763 and the other starting from page 810 onwards. The bare perusal of these two representations shows that they were not similar in nature inasmuch as in the second representation the detenu had made reference to copies of the documents which were supplitd to him later on, particularly the documents marked 'C', 'D', 'E", 'F' & 'H' and some pages of documents marked 'G'" The previous representation was not: made on the basis of these documents.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents Mr. Sat Pa) has vehemently argued that even if the second representation has made reference to some additional documents it would not make any difference because the pleas taken by the detenu vis-a-vis their documents were totally irrelevant. This Court is not to go in the question whether the pleas taken in the second representation are relevant or irrelevant or even frivolous as that would fall within the domain of the appropriate Government. The duty is cast on the approptiate Government to consider the second representation also with due promptitude if some additional facts have been pleaded in the second representation which were not pleaded in the first representation. It is for the appropriate Government to decide whether the additional facts are sufficient to enable the appropriate Government to revoke the detention order or not.