SUNIL KISHORE PATIL Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS is a Writ Petition filed by the detenu-Petitioner challenging the detention order dated 11-8-195 passed by the first Respondent. Rule was issued. The State Government and the Central Government have entered appearance and they have filed their affidavits-in-reply. We have heard Shri Raja Thakare A.M. Chimalkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S.R.Borulkar, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Shri J.C. Satpute, learned Counsel for the Central Government.

(3.) THE affidavit has been filed by one Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. In paragraph 6 of his affidavit it is stated that the representation dated 5-9-1995 sent by the detenu was received by the Central Government on 13-9-1995. On the same day Crash Wireless message was sent to State Government and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai for sending parawise remarks. THEn reply was received from the Commissioner on 29-9-1995. As to what happened between 13-9-1995 and 29-9-1995 we have to gather from the affidavit of Shri R.D.Tyagi, the present Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case file where it is mentioned that the copy of the representation sent by the Central Government was received by the Commissioner of Police on 18-9-1995. It is, therefore, seen that the Central Government sent a Crash Wireless message on 13-9-1995 and sent a copy of the representation separately by post which has been received in the office of the Commissioner of Police on 18-9-1995. THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out from the file that on the same day, the matter was sent to the concerned Inspector. it is also noticed that later it was sent to the Police Prosecutor on 26-9-1995, the matter was placed before the Commissioner of Police who sent a reply on 27-9-1995. It is also seen that 23rd September and 24th September were holidays. If we exclude these two holidays and take into consideration the time spent in getting the reports from the jurisdictional Senior Inspector and then papers passing through the Special Public Prosecutor, then through the Inspector and final report by the Commissioner of Police sent on 27-9-1995, we do not find any undue delay or inordinate delay in submitting the parawise remarks by the Commissioner of Police which were forwarded on 27-9-1995.