LILAWATI SURESH MANGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Shri Suresh Shankarlal Mange alias Suresh Manaji Mange alias Bhanushali, (hereinafter referred to as the Detenu for the sake of brevity), has challenged the detention order passed by G. C. Tripathi, Principal Secretary of State of Maharashtra, Home Department (Appeals and Security) and Detaining Authority, under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA ).

(2.) ALTHOUGH various contentions were raised before us during the course of arguments, however, we have confined the present judgment on the issue of delay in considering the representation by the detaining authority, as in our view, this petition would succeed on this sole ground.

(3.) THE relevant facts for the adjudication of the issue raised before us are that that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order on 6-1-2000, which was served on the detenu on 15-1-2000 along with the grounds of detention, para 42 of the grounds of detention specifically mentions that the detenu was entitled to make a representation to the detaining authority against the impugned detention order and the same was required to be addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Appeals and Security) and Detaining authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 through the Superintendent of Jail where the detenu was kept in custody. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner, wife of the detenu, addressed representation to the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Appeals and Security), dated 3-2-2000, which, according to the petitioner, was handed over directly in the office of the Deputy Chief Minister on the 4th of February, 2000. In support of this plea the original acknowledgment obtained by the petitioner on the said representation was produced before us. The grievance made by the petitioner with regard to delay is articulated in grounds Nos. (h) and (i) of the writ petition, which are reproduced thus :-