THAKORBHAI NARSINGHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) It is true that in the above-stated authority, the Supreme Court has observed that if the Central Government on receipt of representation has called for information from the State Government by wireless message and if 3/4 days time is consumed, delay of said 3/4 days could be said to have been satisfactorily explained and per se it cannot render the detention order invalid. However, in the instant case, the said observation has no application because the representation has been made to the State Government through the detaining authority and no procedure appears to have been prescribed for verification of address of addressee making representation by the detaining authority. On the contrary, after the confirmation of the detention order by the State Government, the detaining authority becomes functus officio and is under obligation to forward the representation to the concerned authority of State Government as soon as possible as required under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, the explanation provided by the respondent No. 2-detaining authority dated 25th September 1999 cannot be treated as a satisfactory explanation and in the absence of such explanation, delay even if of four days, in the instant case, is an inordinate delay causing serious prejudice to the valuable fundamental right of the citizen guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, and as such, renders the detention order invalid and the continued detention has become illegal.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.