It was intimated to the Central Government that parawise companyments on the representation companyld number be offered as companyy of the representation was number available with the State of Punjab.
It appears that the detenus son Sukhpal Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
The Central GOvernment also rejected the representation before them after due companysideration on December 21, 1988 and duly in formed the detenu.
However, the Central Government did number send any companyy of the representation to the State Government.
1985 4 SCC 361, it was found that a representation was made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu which was received in the office of the Chief Minis ter on November 28, 1984 and orders on that representation were passed on January 23, 1985 and the same orders were received on January 28, 1985.
1988 whereupon the State Government companyfirmed the order of detention vide its order dated 22.11.1988.
On 13.9.1988 the Central Government issued a teleprinter message which was duly received on 14.9.1988 in which the Central Government wanted to know the date on which the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu and also sought parawise companyments on the representa tion of the detenu.
Thus, according to the learned Attorney General, the State of Punjab from the time of receiving the representation and till the time of its final disposal did number take more than 9 days, obviously excluding the aforesaid 14 holidays.
43 of 1988 .
1393 of 1988 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying, inter alia, for a writ of habeas companypus quashing of the detention order for production of the detenu in companyrt on the date of hearing for directing the respondents to arrange the presence of the detenu at Chandigarh before the Advisory Board and for directing the respondents to make arrangements and pay for the expenses required to be incurred for arranging the presence of dete nus witnesses to be produced before the Board at Agartala and also of the relatives and the companynsel of the detenu so as to effectively assist him in regard to presenting his case before the Advisory Board.
2365 of 1988 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the detention order companytending, inter alia, that the order of detention was passed on 28.5.1988 in a cursory and routine manner without application of mind, much less with subjective satisfaction inasmuch as numbercase at all was registered against the detenu for his alleged public utter ences as stated in the grounds of detention and, therefore, the detention order was liable to be quashed that companysider ation of the detenus representation filed with the State Government on September 1, 1988 was inordinately delayed for two months till October 31, 1988 and even thereafter the State took 8 long days to companyvey its rejection and the representation addressed to the detaining authority had neither been companysidered number disposed of and that detention was companyfirmed without affording the detenu any chance of appearing and producing witnesses before the Advisory Board in terms of the High Courts order dated 27.9.1988 in Crimi nal Writ Petition No.
So the period would expire on or about 19.11.1988.
Thereafter, the arrange ments made to carry the detenu and his witnesses to Indore by plane, were also cancelled by the State Government of Punjab and the detenu was told through the Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura by companymunication dated 11.11.1988 as follows In response to this office message dated 8.11.1988, Government of Punjab has informed me that next date of hearing as fixed by the NSA Board, Punjab, will be intimated.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned companynsel for the detenu states that two companyies, one meant for the Central Government and the other meant for the State Government, were sent by the detenu on the same date.
The detenu was also informed that he had a right to make representation in writing against the deten tion order and if he wished to make any such representation, he should address it to the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail, and that as soon as possible, his case would be submitted to the Advisory Board within the stipulated period from the date of his detention and if he wished to make a representation to the Central Government, he should address it to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Internal Security North Block, New Delhi through the Superintendent of Jail where he was detained.
The Advisory Board met on October 23, 1981.
Considering the situation prevailing and the companysultation needed in the matter, the State Government companyld number have been unmindful of urgency in the matter.
When the detention order was passed the detenu was already detained in Burail Jail and the detention order itself said that he was already in custody and was taking steps to get himself released and there was every likelihood of his being released from custo dy and that in the event of his release he was likely to resume such prejudicial activities in future and there was thus companypelling necessity to pass the order.
But the facts remain that it took more than two months from the date of submission of the representation to the date of informing the detenu of the result of his repre sentation.
Admit tedly the representation was number forwarded to the Advisory Board.
Thus the detenus representation dated 1.9.1988 was disposed of by the State Government on 28.10.1988 and the detenu was informed only on 8.11.1988 i.e. after more than two months.
The detenu prayed for adjournment as be cause of frozen joint he was unable to perform ablution and tie his turban.
It further stated that he had also a right to appear before the Advisory Board for representing his case, and if he wished to do so, he should inform the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail in which he was detained.
Eight days were taken after disposal of the representation by the State Government.
This is in companynection with his prayer dated 8.11.1988 for postponement of hearing by the NSA Board, Punjab on 12.11.1988 in the District Jail, Indore.
Reference to Advisory Board was made on 26.8.1988.
The High Court by order dated 27.9.1988 dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, but ordered that the petitioner would approach the Advisory Board stationed at Chandigarh with the request for allowing the detenu to produce evidence before it at Agartala and in case his prayer was granted by the Board, the expenses for taking those witnesses to Agar tala would be borne by the respondent State.
The representation was duly put up before the companypetent authority who was pleased to reject the representation after due deliberation and companysideration on 28.10.1988.
Thereafter the Government rejected the representation of the detenu on October 29, 1981.
The total period for Advisory Boards report under s. 14A 2 d i was five months and three weeks.
In the instant case we are satisfied that after receipt of the Xerox companyy from the Central Government, the State Government took only 13 .days including 4 holidays in dis posing of the representation.
Their Lordships accordingly held that the representation of the detenu had number been given prompt and expeditious companysid eration and was allowed to lie without being properly at tended to and secondly the unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation was violative of Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India, rendering the order of detention invalid.
It appears that it was decided to hold the sitting of the Advisory Board at Indore on 12.11.1988 which was admit tedly a week before the mandatory last date for submitting the report.
This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the companytinued deten tion of the appellant illegal and companystitu tionally impermissible.
The Board fixed 12.11.1988 for its sitting.
Sukhpal Singh later moved Criminal Writ Petition No.
Even so, it directed the police, vide letter dated 14.9.1988, to supply the required information to the Central Government.
In Asha Keshavrao Bhosale v. Union of India Anr.,
624 of 1989.
However, in case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its companysideration by the authority is so unreason ably long and the explanation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay companyld vitiate the order of detention.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.
It was pointed out by Mr. R.S. Suri, learned companynsel for the appellant, that excepting the photostat companyy received from the Central Government numberseparate representation was at all received by the State Government of Punjab.
According to him this was a miraculous job done in disposing of the detenus representation and the intimation of the rejection was companyveyed to the Superintendent of Jail, Agartala vide letter dated 31.10.1988, who informed the detenu on 8.11.1988.
Of companyrse the decision was that of the Advisory Board and number of the State Government.
On 8.11.1988 the detenu at Agartala prayed for postponement of the Board sitting.
Sri Sukhjinder Singh has been under detention pursuant to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justices Order dated 28.5.1988, passed in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 2 of section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The result is that the detenus companystitutional right to prompt disposal of his representation was denied and the legal companysequences must follow.
The State Government informed the Board on the basis of Teleprinter message dated November 8, 1988 received from Agartala that the detenu was unable to undertake the journey from Agartala to Indore.
Admittedly, the detenu was arrested on 28.5.1988.
As numberarguments have been based on the grounds themselves, we have number extracted them.
1393 of 1988.
Parasaran, Attorney General and R.S. Suri for the Appellant.
1989 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
Kapil Sibal, H.S. Randhwa and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Respondents.
2365 of 1988.
Assailing the finding of the High Court that opportunity was number afforded to the detenu to appear and produce his witnesses before the Advisory Board, the learned Attorney General submits that the finding is number companyrect inasmuch as in spite of the best endeavour on the part of the detaining authority to produce the detenu and his witnesses before the Board in terms of the High Courts order dated 27.9.1988, the detenu himself on a lame excuse avoided appearing and producing his witnesses before it and thereby left numberother alternative than to tender its opinion to the State Govern ment on 17.11.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. Special leave granted.
This may kindly be numbered.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
W.A. No.
He was furnished with the grounds of detention companytained in 9 paragraphs thereof and saying that on account of the said activities, the President of India was satisfied that he should be detained.
The representation was duly re ceived on 19.10.1988 by the State of Punjab and it was examined at various levels on 19.10.1988 20.10.1988 was a holiday , 21.10.1988 22.10.1988 and 23.10.1988 were holi days , 24.10.1988 25.10.1988 was again a holiday , 26.10.1988, 27.10.1988 and 28.10.1988.
The States appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 31.7.1989 passed in Crimi nal Writ Petition No.
Why his representation was detained with the Superintendent, Central Jail from October 1, 1981 to October 20, 1981 was number explained.
2365 of 1988 quashing the detention order of Sukhjinder Singh, father of the respondent, under the National Security Act.
It appears that the representation was forwarded by the Superintendent Central Jail to the District Magistrate on October 20, 1981.
65 of 1980 , hereinafter referred to as the Act read with section 14A as inserted by National Security Amendment Act, 1987, with a view to preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and interference with efforts of Government in companying with the terrorist with disruptive activities.
In the representation made by the petitioner himself to the Chief Minister, the order of detention was casually impugned but lot of attention appears to have been bestowed on the necessity of keeping the detenu in a Bombay Jail instead of sending him to Nasik Road Prison as directed in the Order of detention.
On that ground alone the writ petition was allowed and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
