Sanjai Singh vs Superintendent, District Jail, Pratapgarh & Others

K.C. Bhargava. & R.P. Nigam, JJ.—Both these writ petitions arise out of the same detention order. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been delay of 68 days in disposing of the representation of the petitioners by the Central Government. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India the delay has been tried to be explained. It has been averred therein that the representation of the detenu was received by the Central Government on 24.10.1996 through the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This representation was immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain vital information''s were required for its further consideration and therefore a crash wireless massage dated 25.10.1996 was sent to District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The required information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 18.11.1996. On receiving the said information the case of the detenu was put up before the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 20.11.1996 who along with his comments put up the same before the Joint Secretary on 21.11.1996. The Joint Secretary considered the case and with his comments put up the case before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 22.11.1996. The Special Secretary considered the matter and after processing the same put it before the Home Minister, Government of India on 23.11.1996. The Home Minister desired reexamination of the case and the case was reexamined by the Deputy Secretary and it was resubmitted to the Joint Secretary on 15.1.1997. The Joint Secretary put up the case before the Special Secretary on 16.1.1997 who passed it on to the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 22.1.1997. The delay is stated to be on account of the Home Minister reviewing the matter relating to N.S.A. and deciding to delegate the work to Minister of State for Home Affairs. The Minister of State for Home Affairs considered the case and rejected the representation of the detenu on 27.1.1997.

Thus we find that after the wireless message dated 23.10.1996 the matter was taken up on 18.11.1996. There was delay of 22 days in between which has not been explained by the opposite parties. Similarly when the matter was sent to the Home Minister on 23.11.1996 for consideration the Home Minister returned it after 23 days. Thereafter the matter was reexamined by the Deputy Secretary concerned and the matter was again placed before the Minister of State for Home Affairs who rejected the representation of the petitioner on 27.1.1997. Thus there was again a delay of 23 days. These delays have not been explained by the opposite parties. It has merely been said that the Home Minister was reviewing the matter relating to N.S.A. and deciding to delegate the work to Minister State for Home Affairs. This cannot be considered to be a sufficient explanation for the delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioners.

In the case of Mohiuddin Versus District Magistrate. Seed and others (AIR 1987 SC 1977) the Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the delay in a matter in which a plea was taken that the Chief Minister was away from Capital and busy with other political affairs at the relevant time. The Hon''ble Supreme Court rejected this explanation and observed as under

�it is somewhat strange that the State Government should have acted in such a cavalier fashion in dealing with the appellant''s representation addressed to the Chief Minister. We are satisfied that there was failure on the part of the Government to discharge its obligations under Art. 22(5).�

In the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India and others (1989 SCC (Cri) 554) there was a delay of 11 days in transmitting the representation of the detenu after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent. In para 12 the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under:

�in our view, the supine indifference, slackness and callous attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent who had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the representation as an intermediary, had ultimately caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant''s representation by the government which received the representation eleven days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible.�

In view of the cases cited above it is clear that the representations of the detenu which are moved for consideration of the Central Government as well as State Government have to be decided at the earliest without any delay. If there is a delay it should be explained for every day. Following these decisions in the present case it cannot be said that the opposite parties have explained the delay of 68 days in deciding the representations of the petitioners. It is held that the representations of the petitioners were not considered by the opposite parties within the reasonable time and the delay occurred on their part remains unexplained.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

(Petitions allowed.)