MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN @ BANTI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 02-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
MARESH KUMAR CHAUHAN @ BANTI 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1990 
[S. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
---: 
Preventive Detention: Conservation of Foreign Exchang~ and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974: Section 3(1)-Detention 
Order-Representation of deten~Expeditious disposal of-Necessity 
.. 
for-Explanation of delay by appropriate authority-Need for-Undue c 
and unexplained delay-Whether violative of Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution. 
l 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng-
ing the detention order passed against him under Section 3(1) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
D 
Activities Act, 1974, alleging that his representation was dealt with in a 
• 
cavalier manner, resulting in undue delay in its disposal. 
Refuting the allegation, it was contended on behalf of the respon-
t 
dents that the representation, received on 23.8.89, was forwarded to the 
sponsoring authority for comments on 25.8.89 and the comments were 
E 
received only on 11.9.89, and orders rejecting the representation were 
issued on 19.9.89, after obtaining the orders of the appropriate 
authorities. The High Conrt rejected the petition as devoid of any 
merit. 
) 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was 
F 
contended that the offices of the detaining authority and the sponsoring 
\ 
authority were within the same city and there was absolutely no expla-
nation for the delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in sendllig 
the comments till 11.9.89, though the representation dated 18.8.89 was 
sent for comments to the said authority even on 25.8.89, thus vitiating 
the order of detention, and that in view of the inordinate and unexp-
G 
lained delay in considering and disposing of the representation, the 
continued detention of the appellant was impermissible and unconstitu-
}, 
tional, as being violative of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of 
the Constitution oflndia. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
H 
979 
A 
B 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1990] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD: I. I A representation of a detenu whose liberty is In peril 
and deprived should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as 
possible; otherwise the continued detention will render itself impermis-
sible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation 
enshrined in Article 22( 5) of the Constitution and if any delay is occured 
in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by 
the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court. [985A-B] 
·Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police & 
Ors., [I989] 3 SCC 173; Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, [I969] 
II Supreme Court Weekly Reports 529; Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of 
West Bengal, [I979] I SCC 2I9; Shall< Hanif & Ors. v. State of W.R., 
• 
C 
(1974] I SCC 637; Raisuddin v. State of U.P., [I983) 4 SCC 537 and 
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Ors., [!980) 2 SCC 275, 
relied on. 
J< 
I .2 Inspite of the weighty pronouncements, of Ibis Court making 
D the legal position clear, it is still disquieting to note that on many occa-
sion the appropriate authorities cause considerable delay in considering 
and disposing of representations and also exhibit culpable indifference 
in explaining such delay. In case the appropriate authority is unable 
to explain personally the delay at various stages, then it will be 
desirable-indeed appropriate-for the concerned authority or auth-
E orities at whose hands the delay has occured to individually explain 
such delay. [985C-D] 
F 
I .3 The Court, in the absence of any explanation, cannot wink at 
or skip over or ignore such an infringement of the constitutional 
mandate and uphold an order of detention merely on the ground that 
the enormity of allegations made in the grounds of detention is of very 
serious nature, as in the present case. [985D-El 
Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup & 
Ors., [I974] I SCC I03, relied on. 
G 
In the instant case, except merely mentioning that the representa-
tion was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25.8.89 
and the comments from the sponsoring authority were received by the 
Department on ll.9.89, there is absolutely no explanation as to why 
such a delay had occured. This undue and unexplained delay is in 
violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22( 5) of 
H the Constitution ofln

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