HARISH PAHWA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 18-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
276 
HARISH PAHWA 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
March 18, 1981 
[A.D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974-Detenu assailing detention order-Failure of State Government to 
dispose of representation within reasonable time-Point not taken before High 
Court-Whether can be raised in Supreme Court-Representations of detenus to be 
dealt with cominuously and disposed of expeditiously-Duty of State Government. 
The appellant who was detained by an order dated 16th May, 1980, made a 
representation dated 3rd June, 1980 from jail, which was received by the State 
Government on 4th June, 1980. Comments were called for from the Customs 
Authorities on the 6th of June, 1980 and were received on 13th June, 1980. 
On 
the 17th June, 1980, the State Government referred the representation to its Law 
Department for opinion which was furnished on the 19th June, 1980. The 
representation was rejected by an order dated 24th June, 1980, which was com-
municated to the jail authorities two days later .. 
The appellant's writ petition having been dismissed by the High Court, he 
came in appeal to this Court raising a new plea that the representation made 
by him against the detention to the State Government was not decided within a 
reasonable time and that the delay was fatal to the detention. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : I. In matters of this kind where all the material necessary for the 
determination of a new point is available on the record, and having regard to the 
importance of the matter, this Court can entertain the point even if it had not 
been raised before the High Court. [277 F-G] 
2. The order of detention declared unconstitutional and appellant directed 
to be set at liberty. [279 Fl 
3. On numerous earlier occasions this Court has made it clear that it does 
not look with equanimity upon delays in considering the representations of 
detenus. Where the liberty of a person is involved it is the duty of the State 
to determine his representations with the utmost expedition and deal with it 
continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. 
[278 G-H] 
In the instant case no explanation had been given by the Government, as to 
why no action was taken on the representation of the detenu on 4th, 5th and 
y 
, 
HARISH v. U.P. STATE (Kasha! J.) 
277 
25th of June 1980 and what consideration was given· from 13th June, 1980 to 
16th June, 1980 and why the file had to travel from table to table before reaching 
the Chief Minister, who was the only authority to decide the representation. 
[278 E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 183 
of 1981. 
Appeal by 
special 
leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated 30.1.1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. 
Habeas Corpus Writ No. 6343/80 . 
R.K. Garg, Naresh K. Sharma and Mukul Mudgal for the 
Appellant. 
R.K. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1 
Hardayal Hardy and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. This is an appeal by one Harish Pahwa against the 
judgment dated 30th January, 1981 of the High Court of Allahabad 
dismissing a petition presented by the appellant to it under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of habeas 
corpus be issued against the State of Uttar Pradesh and Union 
of India in as much as the detention of the appellant by them 
was not in accordance with law. 
2. 
The only point that has been raised before us by Mr. 
Garg appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the representation 
made by him against his detention 
to 
the State Government 
was not decided within a reasnoable time and that the delay 
is fatal to the detention. This point was no doubt not taken 
before the High Court, but in view of its importance and the 
fact that all the material necessary for its 'determination is available 
-0n the record, we have allowed it to be raised before us and have 
overruled a preliminary objection taken by the State to the effect 
that it should not be entertained. 
3. 
In order to decide the point we may refer to certain 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
admitted facts. 
The order of detention is dated 16th May, 1980 and 
H 
the representation made by the appellant against it from Varanasi 
Jail bears date the 3rd of June, 1980. The.State Government received 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
the re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.