RAJUBHAI CHUNILAL PUROHIT Vs. D K JAINS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu Arjunkumar Chunilal Purohit, has impugned the detention order dated 19-9-1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of powers vested in him by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), herein after referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act" read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. S. P. L. 3 (A)/ P. S. A. 1092/4 dated 4-8-1992 detaining him under the COFEPOSA Act.

(2.) SINCE the solitary contention canvassed by Mr. Tejas Muzumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is the inordinate delay in the disposal of the detenus representation by the respondent No. 2, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu as contained in the grounds of detention. Mr. Tejas Muzumdar contended that the detenu made a representation dated 29-1-1996 to the Advisory Board and the said representation along with the report of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government (respondent No. 2) on 7-2-1996. He further urged that after an inordinate delay of 20 days, the respondent No. 2 disposed of the said representation of the detenu. In the contention of Mr. Tejas Muzumdar, this inordinate delay has infringed the fundamental right of the detenu guaranted by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The said contention is to be found in Ground No. 8 (G) of the petition. Ground No. 8 (G) has been replied to in para 4 of the return filed by Mr. M. D. Ambade, Desk Officer, and an officer of the respondent No. 2. In the said paragraph, it has not been disputed that the detenus representation dated 29-1-1996 addressed to the Advisory Board was received in the Home Department on 7-2-1996 along with the report of the Advisory Board. In the said para, it has been averred that the detenus representation, the opinion of the Advisory Board and the material on record were processed by Under Secretary on 15-2-1996; by the Deputy Secretary and the Detaining Authority on 20-2-96 and on the same date it was submitted to the Deputy Chief Minister (Home) who rejected the same on 27-2-1996.

(3.) MR. Rajiv Patil, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that a perusal of the averments contained in para 4 of Mr. M. D. Ambodes affidavit shows that there has been is no delay in the disposal of the detenus representation. We regret that we cannot accept his contention. A perusal of para 4 of the return of Mr. M. D. Ambade shows that in between 7-2-1996 and 15-2-1996 nothing was done in the matter of detenus representation. It further shows that in between 15-2-1996 when the Under Secretary processed the representation and 20-2-1996 when the Deputy Secretary and the Detaining Authority dealt with it, nothing was done. It also shows no explanation has been offered as to why the Deputy Chief Minister (Home) took a weeks time, that is the period between 20-2-1996 and 27-2-1996 in disposing off the detenus representation.