SIM BHARTIBEN BIPIN PANCHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bhartiben, wife of the detenue - Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal, alongwith three other detenus by these four separate wirt petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, have moved this Court, challenging the impugned order of detention dated 22-8-1994, 8-9-1994, 25-8-1994 and 22-8-1994 respectively passed against them, by Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 herein, exercising powers under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same and, to set them at liberty forthwith.

(2.) Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishvardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1995(3) JT 639, the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the instant cases since in the grounds of detention, detenus have not been appraised of their Constitutional right to make a representation to Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, the Detaining Authority who in turn was also empowered to revoke his own order by virtue of provision under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act, their most invaluable right under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make the representation to the Detaining Authority stands infringed to the said extent and accordingly, therefore, the impugned orders of detention deserve to be quashed and set aside and the detenus be set at liberty forthwith .Making good this submission, the learned Advocates for the petitioners have specifically invited the attention of this Court first of all to para No. 2 of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment wherein, the following question came-up for consideration :-

(3.) Mr. H. M. Mehta, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that so far as the Special Civil Application No. 3935 of 1995 is concerned, it is not disputed that the detenu was not appraised (sic.) of his Constitutional right regarding the representation to be made to the Detaining Authority and in fact, he has not made any such representation. In this view of the matter, according to Mr. Mehta, to the said extent, Special Civil Application No. 3935 of 1995 would stand squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishvardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) to the benefit of the detenu of that case who shall have to be ordered to be released forthwith. However, so far as three other Special Civil Applications the same being S.C.A. Nos. 3931 of 1995, 3932 of 1995 and 3934 of 1995 are concerned, likewise the detenu of S.C.A. No. 3935 of 1995 though indisputably the said detenus were not appraised (sic.) of their Constitutional right to make representation to the Detaining Authority, viz., Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi - Officer who was specially empowered to pass the detention order, but at the same time, it is equally indisputable that they had in fact made representation to the said Detaining Authority itself, and therefore, they would stand entirely on different and distinct footings and accordingly, to that extent, the cases of the said detenus would stand distinguished and not governed by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishvardas Patel (supra).