Anifa vs The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore, The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamilnadu, Fort. St. George, Chennai and The Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Home affairs (Internal Secutiry) Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi-1

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the first respondent herein dated 4.7.1998 under the provisions of

Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 directing the detention of one Amanullah, who is said to be the relative of the petitioner with a

view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the public order.

Along with the order, the detenu was supplied with the grounds for detention, which suggest that the petitioner was having nexus with banned

outfit called A1 Umma and was responsible for the riots, which took place in the city of Coimbatore. It is also suggested in the grounds that on

10.2.1998, the said Amanullah was arrested by the police party of Vepery Police Station and at that time, he was found in possession of 400

electrical detonators and 750 ordinary detonators.

It will not be necessary for us to go into the details of the grounds, as the challenge is only on a singular ground of delayed consideration of the

representation sent on behalf of the detenu. Learned counsel very fairly conceded that the representation sent on behalf of the detenu dated

24.7.1998 was expeditiously considered by the State Government and has been rejected. He has absolutely no complaint regarding the same.

However, the learned counsel points out that at the same time he had sent the representation to the Central Government, which had failed to

consider it expeditiously and there was an inordinate delay in consideration of that representation. It is on this ground that the detention is

challenged.

At the out set it must be first clarified that beyond mentioning in ground No. a that the representation dated 24.7.1998 to Government has not

been considered by the Governments expeditiously, nothing more has been suggested. But the task of the petitioner becomes very easy in as much

as the counter has been filed by the Central Government wherein it is accepted that the said representation was received by the Ministry of Home

Affairs on 11.8.1998. It is then explained that it was processed and some information was required. The crash wireless message was sent and a

subsequent reminder dated 2.9.1998 was also sent. It is men pointed out mat the information was received from the State Government on

7.9.1998 and then the said information as well as the representations were worked out by the Ministry and by its officers like Under Secretary, etc

between 9.9.1998 and 11.9.1998. It is then pointed out that the matter was put up before the Joint Secretary and he, after considering the matter,

put up the same to Honourable Home Minister on 11.9.1998 and the Honourable Home Minister himself after duly considering the same, rejected

the representation on 25.9.1998. It is then explained that whatever time was taken in considering the representation was on account of non

availability of information from the State Government, which information was received only on 7.9.1998.

It seems as per the explanation given by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State Government that the detaining authority to whom

the State Government also had asked for certain information in order to consider the representation made to the State Government on behalf of the

detenu, had also sent the information to the Central Government on 7.9.1998. It then seems that after the information was worked out and the file

was considered by the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and other officers, ultimately the Honourable Home Minister has rejected the

representation on 25.9.1998 and has chosen to inform the detenu on 30.9.1998. According to the learned counsel appearing on-behalf the

petitioner, there is no explanation to this delay between 11.9.1998 and 25.9.1998 offered by the Central Government in its counter.

Considering the question of delay, it is a settled principle that there is no time limit set up anywhere. There is a consensus that where the

representation is considered by the State Government expeditiously, the Central Government, who also has the right to consider the representation

under the provisions of the said Act, must consider it expeditiously and without wasting any time in the unnecessary callous procedure. It is held by

the Apex Court in Abdu Salaam''s case (1990 Crl.L.J. 1502) that in such a situation, there should not be any negligence or callous inaction or

avoidable red tapism on the part of the Central Government. In the Abdu Salaam''s case (supra), the Apex Court has refused to find fault with the

Central Government as it came to the finding that the representation in that case was considered expeditiously and there was no negligence or

callous inaction on the part of Central Government nor was any red (sic) involved in the consideration of the representation.

Therefore, the real test which apply in a situation like the present one would be as to whether there is any inordinate delay on the part of the

Central Government in considering the representation. The observations of the Apex Court in Kamlabai ''s case (1993 SCC (Crl) 913 are as

follows:

The delay by itself is not a ground which proves to be fatal, if there is an explanation. However, the short delay cannot be given undue importance

having regard to the administrative actions. We do not think that the delay in this case is so inordinate as to warrant interference.

It will be seen in Kamlabai''s case (supra) that the Central Government, which had received the representation, had sought information by its

(sic) message on 19.5.1992. Further the information was sought calling for the remarks and the matter was concluded by the Central Government

only on 15.7.1992. The delay was much more in that case and yet considering the administrative exigencies and accepting the explanation offered,

the Apex Court has held that there was no undue delay in considering the representation. The situation is more or less similar here.

In this case the Central Government has sought for the comments and got the necessary information on 7.9.1998 from the watchful detaining

authority, who simultaneously sent information to the State Government as also to the Central Government. Therefore, for all the practical

purposes, the Central Government had to act with alacrity after receiving the information, which in our opinion, it did, in as much as the

representation was disposed of on 25.9.1998 i.e., within eighteen days. There is one small explanation offered by the Central Government even for

the period between 11.9.1998, when the matter was posted before the Honourable Minister and 25.9.1998 when the Honourable Minister

ultimately passed the order rejecting the representation. The said explanation is that there were four holidays in between these 14 days. We are

satisfied with this explanation and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above cases, as also taking note of the busy schedule of the

Honourable Home Minister, we hold that there is no inordinate delay nor any callous inaction or slack attitude on the part of the Central

Government and there is also no red (sic) involved. On the other hand, the Central Government has disposed of the representation with alacrity

that is expected of it.

Besides this contention, no other contention has been placed before us. In that view of the matter, we hold that the petition has no merits.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.