ABDUL RAZAK DAWOOD DHANANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 17-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ABDUL RAZAK DA WOOD DHANANI 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APR!J.- 17, 2003 
' 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDEJtND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-Sections 3(/), 8(j) and I /-Detention order-
Representation before competent authority-Rejection-Second representation 
also being rejected-Justification.1of-Held : Second representation was not C 
on any new grounds or fresh mJ/~rial or any subsequent event-There was 
only change in language--Thus rejection of second representation justified-
ln such case Central Government not bound to consider second representation 
and pass a separate order. 
Appellant's son was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Detenu made representation 
D 
to the detaining authority an_d Central Advisory Board challenging his 
detention order on various gro\mds. Advisory Board considered the case of 
detenu and opined against his release. Detaining authority thf'n after careful 
consideration rejected detenu's representation. Thereafter Central Government E 
also rejected the representation. Detenu made second representation but the 
same was also not dispose of by a separate order and the detention order was 
confirmed. Aggrieved appellant challenged the detention. High Court dismissed 
the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that a detenuc has a constitutional right to make as F 
many representations as he wishes to make, and the detaining authority as 
well as the Central Government are under a constitutional obligation to consider 
and dispose of every representation made by the detenue at the earliest. It was 
further contended that even if a detenu does not have a constitutional right to 
make a second representation, in the facts of the instant case since the first G 
representation was pending when the second representation was received, it 
was a part of or continuation of the first representation, in any case, it was 
material before the Central Government which it was bound to consider. 
Respondent contended that all the relevant materials including the second H 
805 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A representation which formed part of the papers which came from the Advisory 
Board, were considered by the Central Government while rejecting the • 
representation; that the principle is well established that there is no 
constitutional right of a detenu to make successive representations, nor is 
there a corresponding obligation on the competent authority to consider aiid 
B dispose of such representation by a separate order, unless the subsequent 
representation discloses "fresh grounds" or "fresh material" or any 
"subsequent event" which may justify the consideration of another 
representation; and that Article 22(5) speaks of "a representation" and 
therefore another representation can be considered only if new grounds based 
on fresh materials are brought to the notice of the competent authority. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The submission that there is no constitutional right of a 
detenu to make successive representations, nor is there a corresponding 
obligation on the competent authority to consider and dispose of such 
D representation by a separate order, unless the subsequent representation 
discloses "fresh grounds" or "fresh material" or any "subsequent event" 
which may justify the consideration of another representation and a formal 
disposal by a fresh order must be accepted. [812-E, Fl 
1.2. Having carefully scrutinized the two representations it is found there 
E is no new ground or fresh material or any subsequent event in the second 
representation made by the detenu. The same grounds and the same materials 
as stated in the first representation have been stated in the second 
representation, except for the difference In language and the manner of 
presentation. In these circumstances the Central Government was not bound 
F to consider the second representation and pass a separate order disposing of 
the same. In fact all the grounds stated in the second representation were also 
stated in the first representation which was rejected by the Central Government 
after obtaining opinion of the Advisory Board and after due consideration. 
Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the Central Government to 
pass a similar order again on the basis of the second representation which did 
G not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.