But, the companytention in this case is that the petitioner and her husband knowing fully well that the representation has to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Government have deliberately sent the representation to the Governor on 6.10.1991 to create a ground for delay and to seek the detention order quashed on that ground From these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner had sent the representation to the Governor on 6.10.1991 deliberately though she and the detenu were aware that the representation should be sent to the Chief Secretary, with a view to create a ground for challenging the detention on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation The Governors Secretariat may be receiving several representations every day and obviously the Governors Secretariat was number aware of the urgency in a representation sent regarding preventive detention.
The Detaining Authority, however, companytested the Writ Petition and took the stand that the representation dated 6.10.1991 was number eligible to be treated as a statutory representation or as one made in exercise of the companystitutional rights, but ought to be companysidered as a mere number statutory representation in view of the fact that, as urged by the Detaining Authority, there were three earlier representations made by the detenu which had been dealt with and disposed of expeditiously by the appropriate authority.
Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, Rumana Begum, wife of Mohammad Ishaq, seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated 22.4.1992 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing her Writ Petition No.
Therefore, the petitioner knowing fully well that the representation has to be sent to the Chief Secretary, deliberately sent to the Governor and there is some delay on the part of the Governors Secretariat in forwarding the same to the State Government but the Government after receiving the representation disposed of the same without any delay We may here advert to the other defence that the representation dated 6th October, 1991 was number the first representation and as the earlier representations had been disposed of with promptitude the delay in dealing with this repetitive and number statutory representation does number vitiate the detention.
It was also urged that the representation made to the Governor was really drawing a red herring across the path as both the detenu and his wife knew that the representation had to be addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government and that the representation submitted to the Governor was a subterfuge resorted to by the detenu.
This detention was challenged before the High Court on grounds, inter alia, that the representation made by the detenu to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 6.10.1991 for the revocation of the order of detention was number disposed of expeditiously, but was delayed by over 174 days in transmitting the representation to the State Government and the representation came to be disposed of only on the 7th of April 1992.
The delay in companysidering and disposing of the representation it was alleged violated the detenus companystitutional and legal rights which require the representation to be companysidered and disposed of with reasonable despatch.
The High Court said No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a detenu can make a representation to the Governor because under the General Clauses Act the State Government means the Governor and the Governor is bound to forward the representation to the companycerned authorities in the State Government.
It is only after the writ petition was filed the Government came to know about the representation sent by the petitioner to the Governor and then sent a reminder to the Governors Secretariat and as soon as it is received by the Government on 31.3.1992, it was disposed of expeditiously by 7.4.1992.
The appellant urged that the representation made to the Governor is for intents and purposes one made to the State Government.
We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.
The companytentions urged did number companymend themselves to the High Court.
Special leave granted.
4072 of 1992 assailing her husbands detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Act .
