CHANDER GURUDAS TALREJA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as the brother of the detenu Dilip Gurudas Talreja, has impugned the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent Ms. Joyce Shankaran, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032, detaining the detenu under Sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974). The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 28.2.2001, was served on the detenu on 17.3.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu prompting the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention Annexure "B". Since in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for adjudication of ground 4(vii) pleaded in the petition on which ground alone in our judgment this petition would succeed, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) MR . Maqsood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, streneously urged that the detaining authority was not only enjoined in law to consider the representation preferred by the detenu with the utmost promptitude but also to communicate her decision with respect to it with the same promptitude. He drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Harish Pahwa vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1126, wherein in para 3 the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the authority to whom the representation is preferred should not only dispose of the same with the utmost promptitude but should also communicate its result to the detenu with the same promptitude.