ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 04-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
-
ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 4, 1989 
[B.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974: Section 3( 1)-Detention order-Representation 
of detenu-Necessity for being disposed of with reasonable expe· 
dition-Superintendent of Jail-Unreasonable delay of JI days in 
transmission of representation as intermediary-Detention order 
quashed. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant was detained pursuant to an order of deten"on 
passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a 
D 
view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the 
augmentation of country's foreign exchange resources. The detaining 
authority on consideration of the material placed before him came to 
the conclusion that the appellant was indulging in receiving and making 
payments in India unauthorisedly under instructions from a person 
residing abroad in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange 
Regulations Act, 1973 and that the said unauthorised and illegal trans-
E 
actions carried on by him and affected adversely the foreign exchange 
resources of the c~untry and as such his detention was necessary. 
The appellant assailed his detention before the High Court ancl 
being unsuccessful filed this appeal. 
F 
Before this Court Counsel for the appellant confined his argu-
ments only to the ground of undue delay caused by the Central Govern-
ment in disposing of the representation made by the detenu which was 
calculated to be of 40 days. The Respondents explained the delay in the 
counter affidavit filed by it but still according to the appellant's counsel G 
there has been undue and unexplained delay of 11 days between the date 
of submission of the representation by the detenu to the Superintendent 
of the Central Prison, Bombay for transmission to the Central Govern-
ment and the date of receipt of the representation by the Ministry of 
Finance and,. he argued, that this unexplained delay has vitiated the . 
order of detention. 
H 
415 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
P< 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
--+ 
-· ' ., 
HELD: It is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid 
period of time uniformly applicable to all cases within which period the 
representation of the detenu has to be disposed of within reasonable 
B expedition but it must necessarily depend on the facts and circum-
stances of each case. [419Ff 
• 
~· 
Rashid S.K. v. State of West Bengal, [1973] 3 SCC 476: Sabir. •· 
Ahmed v. Union of India, 11980 I 3 sec 295; Vi jay Kumar v. State of 
Jammu and Kashmir and Others, [1982] 2 SCC 43 and Raisuddin alias 
c 
Babu Tamchiv. State of U.P. andAnr., [1983] 4 SCC 537; 
When it is emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions 'f 
of this Court that a representation should be considered with reason-
·~ 
able expedition, it is imperative on the part of every authority, whether 
in merely transmitting or dealing with it, to discharge that obligation 
D with all reasonable promptness and diligence without giving room for 
any complaint of remissness, indifference or avoidable delay, because 
the delay caused by slackness on the part of any authority wiU ulti-
mately result in the delay of the disposal of the representation which in 
turn may invalidate the order of detention as having infringed the 
:!' 
mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. l420A-BJ 
'y 
E 
In the instant case, the supine' indifference, slackness and callous 
attitude on the part of the jail Superintendent who had unreasonably 
delayed in transmitting the representation as an intermediary, had -
ultimately caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant's 
representation by the Government which received the representation 11 
F days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the detenu. 
~ 
This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the 
continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally 
impermissible. [421D-E] 
....._. 
Abdul Karim dnd Others v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 1 SCC 
0 
433 referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ''f.-
No. 573 of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 .8.1988 of the Bombay 
H High Court in W.P. No. 627of1988. 
' -
-
ASLAM AHMED v. U.0.1. [PANDIAN, J.I 
417 
Sirish Gupta and V .B. Joshi for the Appellant. 
V.C. Mahajan, A. Su

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