SAMPATRAJ JAVANMAL SHAH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In one more case we have to quash the order of detention because the representation made by the petitioner detenu to the Central Government was not considered by it expeditiously. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Surat on 19-11-1985 against the petitioner, under section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, as be was satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies pf the commodities essential to the community, The grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner on the same day. He made representations against the order of his detention to the State Government and also to the Central Government on 25-11-1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representations have Mt been considered at all. It is therefore contended in the petition that the continued detention of the petitioner has become illegal and as his representations have either not been considered at all or they were considered after an unreasonable delay.

(2.) In reply to this contention raised in the petition, it is slated on behalf of the State Government, that the representation dated 25-11-1985 was received by it on 28-11-1985 and it was considered and final decision thereon was taken on 4-2-1985. It is further stated that the decision could not be taken earlier as the concerned Minister was on tour between 28-11-1985 and 3-12-1985. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) As regards the representation made to the Central Government, it is pointed out on behalf of the State Government that along with parawise remarks it was forwarded to the Central Government on 29-11-1985. That is bow, the State Government has explained the time taken in forwarding the representation to the Central Government. In the reply filed on behalf of the Central Government, it is stated that the representation along with the letter of the State Government and the parawise remarks was received in the Department of FoodT and Civil Supplies on 9-12-1985, and English version of the grounds was received by it on 12-12-1985. After it was examined by the department the file was sent to the law Ministry on 16-2-1985. The said file was then submitted to the Union Minister for Food and Civil Supplies on 27-12-1985. The file was received back by the department on 15-1-1986 along with the decision of the Minister. What is urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner in view of this reply filed on behalf of the Central Government that the time taken by the Central Government in dealing with the representation of the petitioner cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained, and particularly the time taken by the Union Ministry in disposing of the representation must be regarded as unreasonable, as no explanation is forthcoming as to why be took such along time in disposing of the representation. It may be. We were about to dictate the judgment counsel for the respondent Union, prayed that he may be granted some time to file an affidavit of the concerned person explaining the time taken by him. Rule was issued on 27-12- 1985. The respondent to the their replies on or before 10-1-1986, reply affidavit on behalf of the Central Government was prepared on 24-1-1986. Copies there of was not served on the petitioner and the State Government. The reply affidavit was presented in the Court only today. Thus, the request made by the learned Counsel for the respondent Union to grant some time to enable him to file an affidavit of the concerned Minister is made after about two months from the date on which the Central Government was directed to file its reply. The request was made only when the learned Advocate for the petitioner was able to convince the Court that time taken by the Minister has remained unexplained. No such request was made before the hearing of the matter started or even before this point was raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. For all these reasons we do not think it fit to grant time to respondent to enable H to file a further reply. As pointed out above, the file remained with the concerned Minister for about 19 days. Not a word, has been stated as to why no decision could be taken earlier, particularly when the matter was already of examined by the Department and the law Ministry. In absence of any explanation for the long time taken, we must hold that the delay which was caused by the concerned Minister in disposing of the representation of the petitioner was unreasonable. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, continued detention of the petitioner must be regarded as illegal.