KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH versus DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 13-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KUNDANBHAIDULABHAISHAIKH 
v. 
DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art.22(5), Art. 32--Prevention of Black Market-
ing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980-Secs. 
3(2), 2(a), 8(1) and 14-Detenue's 1ight to make representation denotes a 
corresponding duty on the auth01ities to dispose of the representation at the 
earliest-Held, detenue's right is not only a constitutional right but also a 
statutory right. 
A 
B 
c 
A1t. 32-Habeas Corpus-En01mous and grave allegations against the· 
Detenu-Even then court would intervene on violation of fundamentql rights D 
of the detenu. 
The Petitioners were detained on 16.8.1995 under Sec.3(2) of the 
Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential 
Commodities Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were supplied to them 
separately on the. same day. Both of them had made representations to the E 
State Government on 23.8.1995. 
The Petitioners in their writ petition for habea.s corpus contended 
that the representation made by them against the order of detention were 
not dealt with expeditiously and were not disposed of by State Government 
at the earlie.st. · 
F 
The Respondent State denied the allegations and contended that 
there was no delay on their part in disposing of the representations. The 
Respondent Central Government contended that even after repeated 
reminders the State Government did not provide para-wise reply for the G 
representations and as and when the replies were received, the repre-
sentations were disposed of without any delay. 
HELD : 1.1. The representation of a Detenu has to be disposed of at 
the earliest and if there has been any delay in the disposal of the repre-
sentation, the reasons for the delay must be indicated to the court or else the H 
479 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
unexplained delay or unsatisfactory explanation in the disposal of the 
- representation would fatally affect the order of detention, and in that 
situation, continued detention would be illegal, unconstitutional and bad. 
(488-A-B; F] 
1.2. The Petitioners' right was violated since their representation 
B 
could not be disposed of expeditiously by the Central Government due to 
the delay caused by the State Government. (490-A-B] 
S.K. Abdul Kmim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (1969] 1 SCC 433; 
Durga, Show & Ors., (1970] 3 SCC 696; Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West 
Bengal, (1970] 1 SCC 219; Siwik Hanif v. State of West Bengal, (1974] 1 SCC 
C 637; Raisuddin @Babu Tamchi v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1983] 4 SCC 537; 
Frances Coralie Mullin v. WC. Khambra & Ors., (1980] 2 SCC 275; Mohinud-
din Alias Main Master v. Distlict Magistrate, Beed & Ors., (1987] 4 SCC 58; 
Ram Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police & Ors., [1989] 3 
SCC 113;AslamAhmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 
D 3 SCC 277' Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Alias Banti v. Union of India & Ors., 
(1990] 3 SCC 148; Gazi Khan Alias Chotia v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 
(1990] 3 SCC 459; State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Vaidvel Alias Sun-
daravadivel, JT (1992) 5 SCC 318; K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khades 
v. Union of India & Ors., (1991] 1 SCC 476; Julia Jose Mavely v. Union of 
India & Ors., (1992] Crl. LJ.109 (SC) and Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar 
E 
& Anr., AIR (1982) SC 1548, referred to. 
State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmad, (1996] 1 SCC 337, distinguished. 
2. The right to make representation against the order of detention is 
not only a constitution right but a statutory right as well. It is implicit that 
F 
there is a corresponding duty on the authorities to whom the representation 
is made to dispose of the representation at the earliest or else the constitu-
tional and the statutory obligation to provide the earliest opportunity of 
making a representation would lose both its purpose and meaning. 
(486-C-D] 
G 
3. The right under the Act of 1980 has to be treated as an extension 
ofthe constitutional right already available to a Detenu under Art. 22(5). 
Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 39 and 
Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, relied on. [ 486-F-G] 
H 
John Martin v. The State of WE., AIR (1975) SC 775, referred to. 
' 
.-
-. 
--
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 
481 
4. Though person found guilty of economic offences have to be dealt A 
with a firm hand, but when it comes to the fundamental right
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.