REHANA ABDULLA Vs. K L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition there is no return. However, in the instant matter the primary irresponsibility is that of the Joint Secretary, Government of India to whom, we are told, draft return was sent as far back as April, 1989 but who has thereafter not cared to respond. However, it must be said to his credit that proper reminders do not appear to have been sent to him nor has he been apprised that it is necessary in this matter to act promptly since Rule was granted as far back as January, 1989 the returnable date was fixed at 3rd April, 1989. We do not understand how a draft affidavit could be got ready only after the returnable date. This indicates the casual manner in which the the Respondents work. For nearly two months no reminder has been sent for expediting the return. Thus there is casualness on part of all concerned but in the instant case principally on part of those concerned with the passing of the detention order at Delhi. It is clear that they are not able to cope up with the work of defending their orders in Court. If that be so, one wonders and this wonder has been-expressed in a number of matters why they wish to exercise powers of detention as regards the incidents that have occurred in Bombay and New Delhi. However, ways of Government must puzzle ordinary mortals including Judges. There must be some reason for the course adopted but the course adopted obviously does not result in any increase in efficiency.

(2.) IN the instant case the Writ Petition can be disposed of on a very limited ground, viz. , the time interval between the date of the incident and the date on which the order of detention has been made. The detenu is one Mohammed Hanif Abdul Rahim. He arrived at Bombay on Air-India flight from Dubai and attempted to clear himself through the walk-through channel. On 20th September, 1967. On enquiries being made, his answer was that he was not carrying any gold, watches or diamonds either on his person or in the baggage. However four silver coloured chains were recovered from his person which ultimately turned out to be of gold and were coated with a heavy coating of silver. The detenu in his statement stated that this was the only occasion on which he had brought gold to India. He has given the name of his Arab employer. He has admitted that he had come on earlier occasions to India but with his employer. According to the detenu on the present occasion he came alone because he (detenu) was to get married and he had tried to bring gold to make some profit. He has also explained the source from which gold was purchased. According to the detenu, he would have sold the gold or pieces of the chains to any jewellery in Bombay.

(3.) THE story of the detenu was a simple one and as far as we are able to see the investigation was almost totally completed on that very day. The proposal for detention was not made upto 12th February, 1988 and in order to justify this delay, a further statement of the detenu is recorded on 8-12-1987. This statement does not carry the matter any further and is a repetition of the very questions put to the detenu on 20th September. Indeed we may say that the interrogation of the detenu on 20th September, 1987 was exhaustive and this is one of the few cases in which proper investigation was done on the very first day. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the interrogation of 8th December, 1987. That was a frivolous one done only for the purpose of justifying the delay in proposing the detention of the detenu. Once we ignore the said statement, as we must, we must observe that there is no explanation nor justification for the time interval between 20th September and 12th February, 1988. We cannot say that there was any real delay thereafter on the part of the Detaining Authority. The delay, unexplained and unjustified, is between the date of the incident and the making of the proposal for detention.