In his companynter affidavit dated July 29, 1981, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue , COFEPOSA Unit, New Delhi says that numberrepresentation by or on behalf of the detenu relating to his detention has been received by the Central Government.
As such, the question of any delay in the disposal of such a representation does number arise.
The representations to the State Govermnent and the Central Government were made by the detenu simultaneously through the Jail Superintendent.
Some one tripped somewhere and the representation addressed to the Central Government was apparently never forwarded to it, with the inevitable result that the detenu has been unaccountably deprived of a valuable right o defend and assert his fundamental right to personal liberty.
Shyama Mann, Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh shows that the representation of the detenu was companysidered by the Government of Punjab and was rejected on April 28, 1981.
In his affidavit dated July 21, 1981 the P.P.S. 1 , Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar says that the representation of the detenu Rattan Singh was forwarded to the Punjab Government.
The affidavit of Smt.
ORlGlNAL JURlSDlCTlON Writ Petition Nos.
May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe and how their numbers increase deserves numbersympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy.
The companytention of the petitioner is that in spite of the long passage of time, the representation to the Central Government has number so far been companysidered by it, rendering his detention illegal.
3614 3647 of 1981.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated March 27, 1981 passed by respondent 1, the State of Punjab, under section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign enchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
S. Das Bahl and M. S. Dhillon for Respondent No.
But the unfortunate lapse on the part of the authorities is that they overlooked totally the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government.
Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner.
1012 There is numberdifficulty in so far as the representation to the Government of Punjab is companycerned.
The Superintendent should either have for warded the representations separately to the Governments companycerned or else he should have forwarded them to the State Government with a request for the onward transmission of the other representation to the Central Government.
The Jail Superintendent was requested by the aforesaid letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon.
On April 19, 1981, while the petitioner was in detention, his advocate, Shri Harjinder Singh, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf of the petitioner, one of which was addressed to D the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, and the other to the Secretary, Union Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
