SEBASTIAN BASTY ARJOSEPH CREADE Vs. R D TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD all the learned Counsels; Mr. Gupte for the petitioner, Mr. Bagwe for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satpute for respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE petitioner is the detenu who has been detained under the order dated 13th February. 1996 (Exhibit BT page 22) passed by the first respondent. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention issued on 13th February. 1996 was admittedly served on 16th September. 1996, but they are not concerned with the delay in the execution of the order of detention. Several grounds of detention have been mentioned on the basis of which several contentions have been raised in the petition. It is not necessary to go into the details of the same.

(3.) THE only contention canvassed before us by Mr. Gupte is about the delay on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation dated 17th October. 1996 made by the petitioner. This point has been taken in ground (viii) of para 6 of the petition at page 14. It a appears that the representation was prepared at Bombay by the petitionerts Advocate and was sent from Bombay on 8th October, 1996 to the Superintendent of Jail. Nasik Road Central Prison. Nasik, where the detenu was detained. After obtaining the detenus signature it was sent on 17th October. 1996 by the Superintendent of the Nasik Road Central Prison to Delhi and it was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi on 22nd October. 1996. There is some ambiguity in the affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Singh. Desk Officer. Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi when we read paras 6 and 7 of the said affidavit. At the end of para 6 it is stated that on receipt of the representation on 22nd October. 1996 certain vital information required for consideration was called for from the State Government/commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai, through a crash wireless message dated 29th October. 1996. Though there is a delay of about one week in sending the crash wireless message. Mr. Gupte has not criticised this aspect of the matter. In the very next para i. e. , para 7, it is stated that the required information was received by the Central Government from the Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai on 28th October. 1996, as per the Commissionerts letter dated 25th October. 1996. We are at a loss to understand why the crash wireless message was sent on 29th October. 1996, if information was already received on 28th October. 1996 unless it is suggested that the information received was incomplete and hence the crash wireless message sought information on some additional points. The affidavit is not clear on this point but we leave the matter at the since no arguments have been advanced before us.