SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, this petition stands allowed by quashing the orders, Annexure P-3 and P-4, because the detenu made the representation before the jail authorities on 9.9.1996 and it was forwarded to the Government on 20.9.1996 after a lapse of 11 days. For these 11 days, there is no explanation either from the respondents or from the Superintendent, Central Jail. The affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, has not been placed on record as to why he kept the representation of the detenu for 11 days before sending the same to the State Government. Such delay and its effect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam Ahmad Zahire Aimed Shaik v. Union of India and others, 1989(1) RCR 486, and I would like to quote with approval para-9 of the said judgment, which reads as under :- "Thus when it is emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this court that a representation should be considered with reasonable expedition, it is imperative on the part of every authority, whether in merely transmitting or dealing with it, to discharge that obligation with all reasonable promptness and diligence without giving room for any complaint of remissness, indifference or avoidable delay because the delay, caused by slackness on the part of any authority, will ultimately result in the delay of the disposal of the representation which in turn may invalidate the order of detention as having infringed the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution."

(2.) IN this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment in Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu Kashmir, 1982(2) SCC 43, in which the facts were to the following effect :- "Indisputably the Superintendent of Central Prison of Bombay to whom the representation was handed over by the detenu on 16.6.1988 for mere onward transmission to the Central Government has callously ignored and kept it in cold storage unattended for a period of 7 days, and as a result of that, the representation reached the Government 11 days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent. Why the representation was retained by the Jail Superintendent has not at all been explained in spite of the fact that this Court has permitted the respondent to explain the delay in this appeal if not before the High Court."

(3.) I hold that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the Superintendent, Central Jail, in transmitting the representation as an intermediary. This caused undue delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu by the Govt., which received the said representation 11 days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the detenu. This unexplained delay resulted in rendering the continued detention of the present petitioner illegal and constitutionally impermissible.