HABIB NOORBHAI MIYANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the respondent No. 4, Mr. V. K. Shethi, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has filed an affidavit dated 2-9-1986. In this affidavit, the Disk Officer has stated that the content paragraph 11 of the petition concern respondent No. 4, but the rest of the allegaitons have been made against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and so no reply was being given in that connection in the affidavit. It, therefore, seems that the averments made in paragraph 8 of the petitioner have gone unattended so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned. Apart from the aforesaid, learned Advocate for the petitioner has also shown to us a letter dated 4-11-86 written by the said Desk Officer to the petitioner wherein it is stated as under:

(2.) 0In the first place, it is not stated in the said communication as to when the said representation was rejected. In the next place, even though the very same Desk Officer has filed the earlier affidavit referred to above, no further affidavit has been filed by the said Desk Officer with a view to state the exact date when the representation was rejected, as also the facts which might have possibly explained the delay that has occurred in considering the representation dated 2-8-1986. In the absence of any affidavit explaining the said delay, it has to be concluded that there has been inordinate delay on the face of it in considering the said representation, which has affected the continued detention of the petitioner.