SURINDER MOHAN MALBOTRA Vs. K L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated July 6, 1988, passed by respondent No.1 under section 3(1) of the Prevention of the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in concealment of narcotic drugs. Various grounds have been taken in challenging the detention order but it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds because this petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.

(2.) It is admitted that the representation dated August 4, 1988, was made to the authorities against the detention order and it is argued that there has taken place undue and unexplained delay in considering the said representation. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri S.N. Balakrishnan, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, it has been averred that the said representation was received on August 8, 1988, in the Ministry and the same was sent to the sponsoring authority for obtaining the comments and the comments were received from the sponsoring authority on August 10, 1988. However, due to heavy rush of work the matter could not be placed before the detaining authority as it was discovered that the comments pertaining to the petitioner were common to the comments received in respect of the representation of the co detenu Anil Kumar Gandhi and ultimately the representation was placed before the detaining authority on September 30, 1988 and the detaining authority rejected the same on the said day and the memorandum of rejection was issued on October 3, 1988 and the sponsoring authority was required to supply the documents to the detenu and the same were supplied on October 11, 1988. The meeting of the Advisory Board had taken place prior to the said dale. In any case the reasons given for the undue delay which has taken place in considering the representation on the face of it appear to be not sufficient to condone the delay. After all the petitioner has been detained and it was his right that his representation made against the detention order is considered with due promptitude and in case any delay occurs in considering the representation, then some satisfactory explanation should be furnished explaining the delay. Mere averment that due to heavy rush of work the representation could not be dealt with, in my opinion, is not sufficient to explain the unusual delay which has occurred in the present case in considering the representation. On this short ground alone the petition is liable to be allowed.

(3.) I allow the writ petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. The parties are left to bear their own costs.