SANTOSH KRISHNA TANDEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (detenu) has impugned the detention order dated 22.11.1997 passed by the 1st respondent Shri Sudhakar Ambedkar, Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, detaining him under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties, Mr.Oak, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this petition deserves to be allowed on the solitary ground contained in para 13 of the petition viz. that there was an inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.1997 to the Principal Secretary (Preventive Detention), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay 400032. The said ground has been replied to in para 2 of the return filed by Mr. S.Y. Sonawane, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. Therein it has been averred that the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.1997 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special), Mantralaya was received in the Department on 16.12.1997 and after being scrutinized by the concerned officer was submitted to the Deputy Chief Minister (Home) for his consideration on 17.12.1997 and from 15.12.1997 to 24.12.1997, the Session of Legislature was held in Nagpur. What is sought to be conveyed to us by this fact is that the Deputy Chief Minister must have been busy in the Sessions of the Legislatures. Apart from the fact that in the absence of any averment to this effect we cannot raise any such presumption, we find, as averred in this said para, that the Deputy Chief Minister delegated his powers to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on 24.12.1997 in respect of detention matters and the said authority rejected the representation the same day i.e. 24.12.1997.

(3.) THE Apex Court and this Court, times out of number, has held that the preventive detention is a draconian piece of legislation which may be imperative where the prejudicial activities of the person sought to be detained cannot be contained by the ordinary law of the land but it has been repeatedly made clear that strict safeguards have to be conformed to by the authorities. And one such safeguard is that the detenu's representation has to be disposed off at the earliest opportunity. In the right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is implicit an obligation on the part of the authority which disposes off the representation to dispose off the same at the earliest opportunity. We find that in the instant case the representation of the petitioner detenu was not disposed off at the earliest opportunity. Thus his right under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infracted.