MUKESH SINGH RATHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction against the orders of detention bearing No. F.673/634/88-CUS/VIII dated 30th December. 1988 passed by Sh. A K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign. Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Actisities Act. 1974 (COFEPOSA in short). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods.

(2.) Although a number of grounds have been taken up in the writ petition in order to assail the order of detention but the only ground pressed before me is the one taken by the petitioner by way of additional ground in the petition It is stated that there is mordinate delay in the consideration and disposal of the detenue's representation dated 21st March, 1989 addressed. to the detaining Authority despatched through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Indore (despatch No. 105311054 dated 21st March, 1989, Annexure 'E' annexed with the rejoinder to the writ petition) and that this delay has vitiated the continued detention resulting in the infringement of the protection provded under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Union of India Mr. Adish Aggarwal. has pointed out that the representation is actually dated 20th March, 1989 and not 21st March, 1989 as mentioned. He has very fairly conceded that this representation was actually displaced and OB that account the same could net be considered. He also admits that this representation was subsequently traced. Thus, it is clear that there is no proper reason or explanation as to why this representation was not considered by the detaining Authority. In fact, the very tact that this representation was misplaced goes to show how casually it was taken in the department. Thus right of expeditious consideration of representation filed by the detenue stands vitiated which is violatiye of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The detention of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The order of detention quashed. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case or not detained under any other valid order of detention.