TANAJI SHANTARAM KOLI Vs. V K SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein, Shri Tanaji Shantaram Koli, has impugned in this Criminal Writ Petition the order of detention dated 15-6-1989 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980 ).

(2.) SHRI Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, has challenged the order of detention only on one issue. Shri Chitnis pointed out that a representation made by the detenu to the Central Government on 6-7-1989 had not been considered and disposed of expeditiously, but the same had been disposed of after a delay of about a month. Shri Chitnis pointed out that the explanation proffered by the Respondents was not at all satisfactory and that would render the continued detention of the detenu illegal.

(3.) NOW, in order to appreciate the submission made by Shri Chitnis, it will be pertinent to set out certain facts. The detenu made a representation to the detaining authority and the Central Government on 6-7-1989. The representation was forwarded by the Jail Authorities to the Central Government and the same was received in the Ministry on 11-7-1989. Thereafter the Central Government called for parawise comments from the detaining authority on 12-7-1989. The request for parawise comments was received on 13-7-1989. The parawise comments were sent by the detaining authority on 19-7-1989 and the comments were received by the Ministry on 26-7-1989. Thereafter the representation of the detenu was considered and it was finally rejected on 31-7-1989. A wireless message intimating the rejection by the Central Government was transmitted on 1-8-1989. This wireless message was received by the Superintendent, Nasik Central Prison on 2-8-1989. The Jail Authorities informed the detenu on 3-8-1989. The detenu was informed by a written communication on 7-8-1989. The above facts are incorporated in the affidavits-in-reply of the Respondents, and certain facts have been furnished by Shri Page, the learned Public Prosecutor, from the file of the detenu in his possession. Shri Chitnis has taken exception to the delay involved between 1-7-1989, the date on which the parawise comments were called for by the Central Government, and 7-8-1989, the date on which the detenu was informed of the rejection of his representation by the Jail Authorities by a written communication. Shri Chitnis contended that the affidavits-in-reply did not at all explain the delay which spanned over twenty-two days between 12-7-1989 and 7-8-1989. Shri Chitnis described the explanation proffered in the affidavits-in-reply as an eye-wash.