KALOTH PIRAMBIL HAMZA Vs. P. G. RAM RAKHIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Mr. R. S. Gajjar, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. Mr. Gajjar firstly submitted that the representation addressed by the detenu to the detaining authority and the Central Government through Secretary to the Government of India, Delhi has not been considered expeditiously and that there was a delay in considering the same resulting into infringement of the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the detenu that his representation dated 19-8-97 addressed to the detaining authority was considered and rejected on 8-9-97 and there is delay of 21 days, which is unreasonable and unexplained. Mr. J. R. Rajput, Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein he has pointed out that the representation signed by the detenu before the jail authority on 20-8-97 was received by the COFEPOSA Section in Home Department on 21-8-97. The remarks on representation were called for from the Commissioner of Custom vide Home Department's letter dated 21-8-97 which were received on 2-9-97. The COFEPOSA Section in Home Department prepared a factual note in relation to the said representation and put up to Under Secretary on 3-9-97 who cleared it on the same day. Then the file was put up to the Deputy Secretary on 4-9-97 who cleared it on the same day and placed the file before detaining authority who after careful consideration rejected the said representation on 5-9-97. As 6th and 7th September 1997 were holidays, decision to that extent was conveyed to the detenu oh 8-9-97. During the aforesaid period, i.e. from 21-8-97 to 5-9-97 there was public holidays on 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 31st August 1997 and as such there was no unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the said representation. The affidavit-in-reply, in my opinion, clearly takes note of the movement of file received by the Home Department. Since details are given about the movements of the file from the date of receipt till its clearance and since there were public holidays in between it cannot be contended that there was delay on the part of the detailing authority in considering the representation.

(3.) One more grievance made by Mr. Gajjar that the State Government rejected the representation on 11-9-97 and, therefore, there was a delay of 24 days also does not appear to be well-founded, because in the said affidavit it has been stated that -after receiving the remarks from the Commission of Customs, Ahmedabad, on 2-9-97, the file was put up before the Under Secretary on 3-9-97 who cleared it on the same day and submitted it to the Deputy Secretary on 4-9-97 who cleared it on the same day. Then it was sent to the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on 5-9-97 who cleared it on 6-9-97. There were public holidays on 6th and 7th September -1997. So the papers were sent to the office of the Chief Minister on 8-9-97, who rejected the said representation on 9-9-97 and the decision to the effect was conveyed to the petitipner-detenu vide letter dated 11-9- 97. In my opinion, the so-called delay of 24 days as alleged by the petitioner is reasonably and properly explained.