P. PAULSAMY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. PAULSAMY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
MAY 14, 1999 
B 
(G.T. NANAVATI AND.S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1988-Section I 3(1)-0rder of detention-Unreasonable 
delay on part of government in considering representation of detenu-Whether 
C fatal-Held, yes-Order of detention liable to be quashed. 
An order of detention u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988, was passed to prevent 
the detenu from engaging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The detenu 
made a representation on 26-10-1998 which was rejected on 12-11-1998 and 
D detenu was informed by letter dated 13-11-98. This writ petition had been 
filed by the .detenu under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging 
his continued detention as illegal on ground of unreasonable delay on the 
part of the Government in considering his representation. 
E 
Union oflndia justified the delay by stating that representation of the 
detenu was received in the office on 28-10-1998 which was received on 10-
11-1998 and the representation along with comments was submitted to the 
Secretary of the Ministry of Finance on 11-11-98 which was rejected on 12-
11-98 after due consideration. 
F 
. Allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of detention, this 
Court 
HELD : In preventive detention cases, though the delay on the part of 
the government in considering the representation of detenu, by itself is not 
G fatal, the delay which remains unexplained would be unreasonable. In the 
instant case, though the representation was received on 28-10-1998, 
comments of Sponsoring ~uthority were called for on 29-10-1998 which 
were received on 10-11-1998. The order calling for comments of the 
Sponsoring Authority was not passed by any of the officers empowered. The 
representation was dealt with in a routine manner and there was no application 
H of mind by the competent officer as to whether it was necessary to call for 
736 
,,_._ 
I 
' 
-· ,, 
·
-
P. PAULSAMY v. U.O.I. [S.N. PHUKAN, J.] 
737 
comments of the Sponsoring Authority. Therefore, this delay from 28-10-98 A 
r-
to 10-11-1998 being uncalled for has to be regarded as unreasonable and 
therefore, fatal. (738-F-H] · 
Venmathi Selvam (Mrs.) v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1998) (5) 510, 
relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 
194 of.1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.98 of the Madras High Court 
in Cr!. O.P. No. 8785 of 1998. 
R.K. Jain, K. Subramanium, Mahesh Agrawal, E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma, 
Rishi Agrawal and Triveni Potekar for the Petitioner. 
P.P. Malhotra, Rajeev Sharma, B.K. Prasad and Y.P. Mahajan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was. delivered by 
S.N; PHUKAN, J. This writ petition has been filed by the dei.eP.u under 
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Joint Secretary to the Government 
B 
c 
D 
of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue who was empowered 
under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and E 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ( for short the Act), being satisfied from 
the records that it is necessary to prevent the detenu from engaging in illicit 
trafficking in narcotic drugs in future, passed the order of detention on 28th 
September, 1998. On the same day grounds of detention were issued and the 
detenue was informed that ~e could make a representation against the order F 
of his detention, to the Detaining Authority and/or the Central Government 
addressed to the Detaining Authority or to the Secretary to the Government 
. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. On 26 .. 10.1998 the 
detenu sent a representation addressed to (1) the Advisory Board. (2) the 
Secretary to the Government oflndia, Ministry ofFinance and (3)-the Detaining 
Authority. 
G 
In the counter affidavit dated 11.05:99 filed on behalf of the Union of 
India i.e. respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the said representation was 
received in the office 011 28. l 0.1998 and comments from the Sponsoring 
Authority were called for by Jetter dated 29.10.98 and the same were received 
on 10.11.98. The representation along with comments was submitted to the H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 3 S.C.R. 
A Secretary of the Ministry of Finance on 11.11.98 which was rejected on 
12.11.98 after due consideration and detenue was informed by letter dated 
13.11.9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.