On enquiry made by the staff of the supply Department, it was revealed that those barrels brought.
However, in the Additional Affidavit dated 20.11.1995, the Central Government says through V.K. Jacob, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Civil supplies that companyments from the State Government were received on 6,11.95 and, after due companysideration, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 8.11,95.
The internal movement of the file thus took four days, The representation was then sent to the Special Branch where it was received on 1.9.95.
The Minister, Food and Civil Supplies, rejected the request of the petitioner and companyfinned the detention order.
It is pointed out in the companynter affidavit that the representation, on being received in the office of the Chief Minister on 25,8,95 was sent to the Secretary, Food Civil Supplies Department, where it was received on 29.8.95.
492 of 1995, were detained in jail in pursuance of the orders dated 16th August, 1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedbad and District Magistrate, Surat, respectively, under section 3 2 of the Preven tion of Black Marketing Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 For short, Act .
Apart from the above, the representation dated 2.9.95, which was made to the Central Government companyld number be disposed of for want of companyments from the State Government.
The representation was rejected on 19.10.95 as there was numberspecific reasons furnished by the detenu that may warrant the revocation of detention order.
That the deponent forwarded the Concerned file to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, The Deputy Secretary cleared this file on 6.9.1995 and submitted it before the Secretary who also cleared it on the same day, i.e. 6.9.1995.
Therefore, the said representation came to be put up for disposal on 6.9.1995 as 5.9.1995 was holiday being Sunday.
However in spite of our reminders dated 29.9.95 and 5.10.95 the same were received on 18.10.95.
The said representation thereafter was sent to the Special Branch of Food and Civil Supplies Department.
Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India provides as under When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, companymunicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
The representation was taken up by the Special Branch on 6.9.95.
It is stated that the decision regarding the rejection of the representation was companymunicated to the detenu by a letter dated 11.9.1995.
Madinabibi Shaikh was addressed to Chief Minister, Gujarat State, which was received by Chief Ministers office on 25,8,1995, and was sent to the office of Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department which was received by the office of the secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department on 29,8.1995.
The opposite parties have filed companynter affidavits in which they have denied the allegations made by the petitioners and have set out in detail as to how their representations were dealt with.
In both these petitions, the principal companytention raised by the companynsel for the petitioners is that he representation made by the petitioners against the order of detention were number dealt with expeditiously and were number disposed of by the State Government at the earliest.
The decision of the Central Government was companyveyed to Supdt.
In this case, the Central Government has also filed a companynter affidavit in which the plea of the detenu with regard to the delay in the disposal of his representation is answered as follows The companytents of the para are number admitted hence denied.
The grounds companytain various other details.
The Central Government therefore, examined the representation on the basis of the facts available with them which are sent by the State Government through Reports grounds of detention through their letter dated 25.8.95.
The said representation was put up by the Special Branch along with the file and numbere on 2.9.1995.
It was indicated that the State Government did number sent its parawise companyments in spite of the telegram dated 12.10,95 and the reminder dated 19.10.95.
Even if they related to preventive detention, then such of those which were ready for disposal and in respect of which companyments from various departments had been gathered and other formalities companypleted should have been disposed of immediately and should number have been kept pending on the ground of chronological disposal by saying that representations filed earlier by other detenus were still to be disposed of.
The State Government was also informed simultaneously on the same day.
A companyy of the said representation was also sent to the Central Government by speed post letter dated 19.9.1995.
The reply filed by the State Govt.
The reply of the State Government with regard to the disposal of representation in Writ Petition Crl.
The file was received back by the Special Branch on 8.9.1995.
The companyments of the State Government were received by the Central Government on 6.11.95 and the representation was disposed of on 8.11.95.
Consequently, he was detained under Section 3 2 of the Act in order to prevent him from carrying on his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential companymodities.
This indicates that the representation was placed in the queue and was number given precedence over other representation which are number said, in the companynter affidavit, to relate to detention orders.
from Shreeji Petroleum Agency, Sarkhej, at the instance of Shri Ishamilbhai who was in possession of the godown and that petitioner was the owner of the auto rickshaw, Ishamilbhai, on being questioned, have out that kerosene in 4 barrels was loaded at his instance and that he was the tenant of the godown.
per kg.
regarding the said representation vide its telex dated 22.9.1995.
He was to sell the wheat at the companycessional rate of Rs.
In the second case also, the representation dated 23.8.95 made by the detenu was forwarded to the Central Government by the State Government under its letter dated 19.9.95 which was received on 21.9.95 by the Central Government, which by its telegram dated 22,9.95 and reminders dated 29.9.95 and 5.10.95 called for the companyments of the State Government, The State Government, true to its companyours, sent the companyments on 18.10.95.
The chronology must be broken as soon as a representation is ready for disposal.
The file was received back by the Special branch from the companycerned Minister and by a letter dated 14.9.1995 detenu was informed about the decision taken on the said file of representation.
The Central Government, in spite of its telegrams and reminders, was number furnished the companyments by the State Government for over a month.
The representation was then sent to the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies on 7.9.1995 for his orders.
Soon after the telex was received by the special Branch of the Department, the parawise remarks were translated in English and were sent to the Central Government by speed post letter dated 11.10.1995.
These orders are companytained in Annexure A to the writ petition in both the cases.
The file was cleared by the Honble Minister on 12.9.1995 as 9.9.1995 and 10.9.1995 were government holidays.
The file of the said representation was then submitted before the deponent on 5.9.1995 and the same was cleared by the deponent on the same day.
It is, therefore, submitted from, the above facts that there is numberdelay whatsoever in disposing the representation made by the wife of the detenu so far as the State Government is companycerned, The Central Government, in its first companynter affidavit, admitted that the representation dated 2.9.1995 of the petitioner against the order of detention was still pending, though it was received on 4.10.1995 along with the State Governments companyering letter dated 27.9.1995.
It was received by the companycerned Branch, i,e. Special Branch on 1.9.1995.
The Central Government asked for the companyments of the State Govt.
491 of 1995 and Rameshchandra Somchand Shah, petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
The Special Branch put up a numbere on the said representation on 6.9.1995, as there were around 40 to 50 representations which were pending for disposal during the said period.
The grounds of detention were supplied separately, though on the same date, and they are companytained in Annexure B. Petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
in Writ Petition Crl.
However a representation dated 23.8,95 of the detenu forwarded by the State Government vide letter dated 19.9,95 was received in the Ministry on 21.9.95.
Central Prison, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad on 19.10.95 by telegram with direction to companyvey to detenu.
During this period, the file was being processed in the government departments.
After companysidering the companytents of the representation of the detenu, it was felt necessary that parawise remarks of the State Government should be called for and therefore, I called for the same vide our telegram date 22.9,95.
In the first case, the representation dated 23.8.95 was received in the office of the Chief Minister on 25.8.95 and was ultimately disposed of on 12.9.95 and the order was companymunicated to the detenu on 14.9.95.
Kundanbahi Dulabhai Shaikh, petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
Which need number be mentioned here as those details are number relevant to the question on which we intend to dispose of this petition, Petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
Sub section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, inter alia, provides as under Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order l when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall companymunicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government.
The inactivity in taking up the representation for six days is explained by showing in the companynter affidavit that there were about 40 to 50 representations pending for disposal and they were taken up chronologically.
The file was cleared by Section Officer on 7.9.1995 and submitted by the Branch on 7.9.1995 to the Department which was cleared by Department on 7.9.1995 and was put up before the Deputy Secretary who in turn cleared it on 8.9.1995 and submitted it before the secretary who also cleared it on the same day and submitted the file before the Honble Minister for Civil Supplies for his orders.
491/95, so far as it relates to the disposal of representation, is, as under In fact, the above said representation dated 23.8.1995 made by the wife of the detenu Smt.
492/95 is as under That the representation of the petitioner dated 23.8,95 addressed to the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies Annexure D to the writ petition was received by the companycerned Special Branch of the Food and Civil Supplies Department through the office of the Minister on 29.8.1995.
492/95 carries on business in government foodgrains in a fair price shop.
but when his shop as also the registers and documents companytained therein were inspected by the staff of the supply Department, it was found that he had companymitted serious irregularities in the sale of wheat.
They were taken up chronologically.
491/95 is the owner of a godown where 4 barrels companytaining 800 litres of kerosene meant for distribution to the public under the Public Distribution Scheme were found loaded on an auto rickshaw.
Copies of the said representation of the petitioner were sent to the Advisory Board on 12.9.95 before its scheduled meeting to be held on 14.9.95.
