It appears that the detenu was apprehended on June 28, 1981, and served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention as well as with companyies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention.
On July 6, 1981, the two representations were received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar.
9677/SDSB S 5 dated September 23, 1981, forwarded the companyy of the representation endorsed to the Central Government and that it was received in the Ministry of Finance on September 24, 1981.
This was indeed a serious lapse on the part of the State Government, and it is quite evident that it has numberexplanation to offer.
The Central Government acted with great promptitude in dealing with the representation and found numberground to interfere with the order of detention.
In his companynter affidavit dated September 8, 1981, Shri N. I. Ramanathan, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, stated that numberrepresentation from the detenu relating to his detention had been received by the Central Government and, as such, the question of any delay in its disposal did number arise.
On July 4, 1981, while the detenu was under detention his companynsel Shri Herjinder Singh addressed a registered letter to the Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf the detenu, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Department of Home, Chandigarh, and the other endorsed to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act.
In his supplementary affidavit dated October 6, 1981, Shri N.I. Ramanathan, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance.
There is numberexplanation given for number forwarding the other representation to the Central Government.
It, however, appears that the representation made by the petitioner to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act, was number forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government till September 23, 1981.
The Superintendent was requested by the said letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government, after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon.
Shri N.I. Ramanathan, Undersecretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, has revealed that the companyy of the representation endorsed to the Central Government was received in the Ministry of Finance on September 24, 1981.
and on the 7th, he forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh, with an endorsement that one of them be forwarded to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
As against this, in the instant case, the representation made by the detenu was forwarded to the Central Government on September 23, 1981, i.e., after a lapse of 2 months and 15 days.
On the next day, i.e. July 8, 1981, the two representations, one addressed to the State Government and the other endorsed to the Central Government, were received in the Home Department.
The detenu was number deprived of the right of making a representation to the State Government, i.e., the detaining authority as well as of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act The representations that he made were duly companysidered by the State Government and the Central Government.
It, therefore appears that till September 8, 1981, the representation endorsed to the Central Government remained unattended to in the Punjab Secretariat.
The question is whether the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in number forwarding the representation till September 23, 1981, i.e. for a period of 2 months and 15 days, renders the companytinued detention invalid.
On July 24, 1981, the State Government rejected the representation made by the detenu and thereafter forwarded it to the Advisory Board, which by its report dated July 31, 1981, companysidered the representation and rejected it.
The said representation was companysidered by the Central Government and rejected on September 28, 1981.
Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, has disclosed that the State Government of Punjab, by its letter No.
The said representation was companysidered by the Central Government and rejected on September 28, 1981.
3614 of 1981, decided on October 22, 1981, there was, in that case, as here, a lapse on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation simultaneously made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11.
It is, therefore, quite clear that there was numberdelay on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the representation.
In his companynter affidavit, Shri Kuldip Singh Janjua, IAS, Joint Secretary to the State Government of Punjab, Home Department, has number companytroverted the allegation made by the detenu that his companynsel had forwarded two companyies of the representation, one addressed to the State Government and the other to the Central Government, with request for the onward transmission of the other representation to the Central Government.
On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government companyfirmed the order of detention on August 6, 1981.
He merely adverts to the fact that the State Government had taken all the necessary steps to deal with the representation made by the detenu to it.
The question at issue is whether the failure of the State Government of Punjab to forward the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act with reasonable despatch renders his companytinued detention invalid.
P. Sen, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by one Sat Pal seeks issuance of a writ of habeas companypus challenging the validity of the order of detention passed by the State Government of Punjab on May 12, 1981, under Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act , on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods.
