GRACE ODARKAR LAMPTEY Vs. L HMINGLIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a citizen of Ghana, has challenged the order of detention dated 13-4-1989 passed against her by the Detaining Authority under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Act 46 of 1988 ). This Writ Petition can be disposed of on the narrow issue that the authorities concerned have not considered the representation made by the Detenu with the necessary promptitude and expedition.

(2.) THE Detenu made a representation to the State Government as also the Central Government on 27-7-1989. The same was received by the Superintendent of Prison on 1-8-1989. The representation was despatched to Delhi on 5-8-1989. It is the contention of the Detenu that there was a delay of three days in despatching her representation to the Department at Delhi. The representation was received in Delhi on 9-8-1989. On the same day, i. e. , on 9-8-1989, the Department sent for parawise comments from the Government of Maharashtra as also from the Deputy Director of Narcotics. Since no reply was received, the Department sent a reminder on 22-8-1989. The parawise comments, which were dated 16-8-1989, were received by the Department on 28-8-1989. It is the contention of the Detenu that there was a delay of twelve days in preparing the parawise comments. The comments of the Government of Maharashtra were also forwarded and received by the Department on the same day, i. e. , on 28-8-1989. Thereafter the papers were pleaded before the Joint Secretary on 30-8-1989, and on the same day the Joint Secretary, after endorsing her recommendations, placed the papers before the Minister of State for Revenue. The Minister of State for Revenue placed the papers before the Finance Minister on 1-9-1989, and the Finance Minister rejected the same on 4-9-1989. The rejection memo dated 7-9-1989 was received by the Detenu on 18-9-1989. Therefore, here also, according to the Detenu, there has been a delay of eleven days.

(3.) SHRI Gupte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Detenu, containded that there has been a delay of several days in considering the representation of the Detenu and this would render the continued detention of the Detenu void. In support of his submission, Shri Gupte relied on two recent rulings of the Supreme Court on the same issue, i. e. , unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation made by the Detenu. In the case of Aslam Ahmed v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1403, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after reviewing various authorities on the same issue, observed :