MANJU NARULA Vs. K L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, detained by means of detention order passed on 5th August, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Ordinace, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), and served on her the same day, seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order cr direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing her release forthwith, by quashing the order of detention, referred to above.

(2.) The detention order has been passed on the allegations that shir was closely, and actively associated in the activity of illicit trafficking, and transportation of narcotic drags (heroin), and that her detention was necessitated with a vicv to preventing her from engaging in the aforesaid activity. The petitioner made a detailed representation against her detention on 18th August, 1988 whereby, besides pointing out a number of facts which militate against the validity of her detention, and while praying for the revocation of the same, she requested for copies of number of documents, which, according to her, were relied upon, referred to and taken into consideration by the detaining authority, but had not been supplied with the grounds of detention, and which according to her, were necessary, to enable her to make an effective representation. She also pleaded that number of copies of the documents, has given to her, were illegible and thus she was deprived of her right to make a proper representation and prayed that legible set of copies be supplied to her.

(3.) The representation was rejected, and! the .:communication thereof was sent to her by memorandum dated 2nd September, 1988. There was, however, no indication as to whether her request for supply of documents or for amending the defect in the copies of the documents already given, by making available legible copies, was being considered or not. The present writ petition was filed on 24th September, 1988, and by that time the petitioner had not before anything further with reference to her request, for supply of copies of documents, enumerated in the representation. Faced with this situation, one of the grounds taken is that the continued detention of the peitioner has be- come unlawful and liable to be quashed, for the reason that the detaining authority had failed to comply with the constitutional and mandatory requirements, which enjoin that copies of the documents relied upon, referred to in the grounds of detention, or taken into consideration, and incorporated in the grounds of detention by reference, by the detaining authority ought to be supplied to the detenu within 5 days of the detention in the normal course, and within 15 days in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It appears that not only this requirement was not adhered to, but even after request by means of the representation, the documents sought, for, had not been made available, nor the lapse in supplying illegible copies, made good by furnishing the petitioner with fresh legible copies. The view., that commends itself with reference to this ground, pleaded in the writ petition, in the light of the arguments addressed and authoities cited; makes it unnecessary, for me to take note of oilier grounds set up in the petition, because failure on the part of the detaining authority in observance of the constitutional requirement, so stares in the face that the petitioner becomes entitled to succeed, on me basis of this plea alone'.