SHOBHANABEN BIPINBHAI MOHANLAL TRIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary either to state the facts in more details or to deal with all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as this petition deserves to be allowed only on the ground that the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government was not considered as expeditiously as possible. The detenu had sent his representation to the Central Government on 6-1-1986. What is urged by the learned Advocate for the prtitioner is that it was disposed of only on 12-1-1986 i.e. after an unduly long period of one month and six days. The time taken by the Central Government is sought to be explained by K. K. Rao, Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Civil Supplies, in his reply affidavit as under:

(2.) It is not explained why para-wise comments were required to be called for. It is not explained why the file was required to be referred to the Law Ministry on 29-1-1986. It is not explained why the Minister concerned could not deal with the representation earlier than 12-2-1986. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 1126, calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to make in a matter of Such vital import. As further observed by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representation with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for considration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. In the words of the Supreme Court, where this is not done, the detention has to be declared unconstitutonal.