MANSUKHBHAI POPATBHI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of his detention dated 10-6-86 passed under the provisions of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 by the Government of Gujarat with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities, that is to say, edible oilT essential to the community. Pursuant to the said order of detention, the petitioner was actually detained on 11-6-1986. The grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner on 16-6-1986.

(2.) Petitioner has contended vide paragraph 5 of the petition that he had made a representation to the Governor against his order of delention and that though the representation was made on 20- 6-86 no reply had been received from the State Government in that connection petitioner has, therefore, contended that as the said representation had not been considered by the State Government and as there has been an inordinate delay in considering the same, the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal. The said contention has been met with in the affidavit of Mr. K. B. Makwana, Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated 26-8-1986 vide paragraph 5. It has been admitted in the said affidavit that the representation made to the Governer of in view of the decision in the case of Raghavendra Singh v. Superintendent District jail, Kanpur, -is to be considered as a representation to the Government. It has further be admitted that the said representation had been made on 20-6-1986. It is, however, contended that the representation was considered by the State Government on 16-7-1986 and was communicated on the very day to the detenu in Central Prison, Ahmedabad. So far as de lay is concerned, it has been stated in the said affidavit that in fact there was a delay of about 26 days, but the delay was more apparent than real. The governments made in this connection in the said paragraph 5 are as under: In fact, the said delay has occurred as explained hereunder. That the grounds of detention dated 10-6-86, were served upon the detenu on 12-6-86 (at the time of submission, it was stated that the said date was 16th and not l2th) i.e. after be was actually detained. In the said grounds of detention it is specifically pointed out to the detenu that in the event of he desiring to make any representation to the State Government, he may do so to the specific authority i.e. Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Block No. 14, 6th Floor, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. It was also pointed out to the detenu that if he desires to make any representation to the Central Government he can forward through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Sabarmati for consideration of the Secretary Ministry of Civil Supplies, Knshi Bhavan, New Delhi. This particular aspect is stated in Gujarat i.e. the language which the detenu understands very well. Despite the telling fact, the petitioner has chosen to make a representation to his excellency Governor of Gujarat for the reasons best known to him. It is on account of the mistake of the detenu only that the delay has taken place in consideration, as the said representation dated 20.6.86 was received by the Section Civil Supplies Department on 11-7-86 at 4.00 p m. Neither any representation nor a copy of the said representation was received earlier by this Department. The file of the detenu was immediately put up along with the marks on the said representation on 14-7-1986, as 12th and 13th July, 1986 being holidays, the offices were closed. I say that the file was put before the Under Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and in turn to the Additional Chief Secretary on 14-7-1986, and the same was cleared on the very day i e. on 14-7-86. Thereafter, the file was sent to the office of the concerned Minister on 15-7-86. The Honble Minister, after duly applying his mind, on the same day rejected the representation and the reply to the said effect was communicated to the detenu by a letter dated 16-7-1986. All these facts clearly go to show that there is no inordinate delay whatsoever in disposing of the representation submitted by the detenu. The aforesaid avernments go to show that after the said representation was received by the Secretary, Civil Supplies Department on 11-7-86, it has been duly considered and there is no delay whatsoever after 11-7-1986 in attending to the representation. However as stated above the representation was made on 20-6-86 to the Governor and that a fact is not disputed. It is clear, in view of the said affidavit, that on and from 20-6-86 upto 11-7-86, the said representation was not - attended to at all. There is no explanation coming forth in the affidavit regarding the said delay between 20-6-86 and 11-7-86. The only attempt to explain the said delay is by saying that even though the detenu was informed specifically at to the person to whom the representation should be addressed, the detenu had not chosen to address the same accordingly, but had sent his representation to the Governor and, therefore, the delay was caused because of the mistake on the part of the detenu. The aid explanation is not an application at all in the eye of law because it is admitted by the respondent No. 1 that a representation could be made to the Governor pursuant to the aforesaid decision. Once that is admitted, then it is of no consequence that the detenu had not made a representation as per the what was told to him by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. Such an explanation cannot be regarding as a valid explanation regarding the delay that has occurred in between 20-6-86 and 11-7-1986. Excepting the aforesaid, nothing else has been pointed out which might explain away the aforesaid delay. It is, therefore, evident that there has been inordinate delay, as stated above, in considering the representation made by the detenu to the Governor. It is, therefore, clear that the aforesaid has rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal.

(3.) In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. It is declared that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. The petitioner by, therefore, released forthwith, if not required to be detained pursuant to any other order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.