PABITRA N. RANA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 30-01-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

If 
) 
'· 
869 
PABITRA N. RANA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
January 30, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
B 
Preventive Detention under stk:tion 3(1) of the (7onservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Sniugg/ing Activities Act, 1974-Inordinate and 
u1W!xplai11cd delay in deciding the representation filed by thei, detenu violateS' 
_ Article 22(5) of the Constitution and hence vitiates detention. , 
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court 
HELD : Under clauses 4 and 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution tho detenu 
has a dual right viz. 
(i) to have the representation, irrespective of the length of detention, 
considered by the appropriate Government; and 
c 
(ii) to have the representation considered by the Board duly constituted 
D 
under the concuned Act. [870 E-F] 
Further, the constitutional right to file a representation to the Government 
carries with it impliedly a right that the representation must be disposed of as 
quickly as possible and any unexplained delay would amount to a violt'ltion of 
constitutional guarantee contained in Article 22(5). [870 F-G] 
The obligation of the appropriate detaining authority to take 0. decision on 
the representation filed by the detenu is quite apart and distinct from its obliga-
tion to constitute. a Board and to send the representation to it. The detaining 
E 
~-
~uthdor~t~ is n?th entitlhed t
1
o wait f~brl Ihde 
1
opinio[n
87
o
0
! 
0
theHBo
8
a
7
r
1
d Abu] t has to take 
' 
ds 
ecmon wit out t e east pOSSI e 
e ay. 
- , 
' .. 
Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal [1970] I SCR 
F 
543 and Narendra Purushotam Umrao ietc. v. B. B. Gujral and Ors., [1979] 
2 SCR 715; relied on. 
CRIMINAL ORJGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 
1376 of 1979. 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution). 
A. K. Sen and Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner. 
U. R. Lalit and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL Au, J.-This Writ Petition has been filed with a pljyer 
that an order of detention passed against the petitioner on the 7th 
H 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 
September, 1979, under s. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Ex-
change and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be quashed. 
After the order was served on the detoou he made a representation on 
the 27th September, 1979 to the Govt. who received it on the 28th Sep-
tember, 1979. 
In support of the Rule Mr. A. K. Sen has raised 
a number of points, but in view of one of them which is to the effect 
that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part 
of the detaining authority in deciding the representation and that !he 
detention is therefore vitiated, we need not go into the other points. 
On the question of delay the petitioner had expressly taken a plea 
in para 11 of the petition but in their reply the respondents have 
not at all explained or detailed any reason why there was inorrlinate 
delay in disposing of the representation submitted by the detenu 
to the detaining authority. 
The admitted position is that the repre-
sentation was received by the Government on the 28th September, 
1979 and it was rejected on 3rd November, 1979, that is to say, 
after about one month and five days of the receipt. It is now well 
settled that any unexplained delay in peciding the representation filed 
by the detenu amounts to a clear violation of Art. 22(5) of the 
Constitution of India and is sufficient to vitiate the detention. 
Our 
attention was drawn by the counsel for the petitioner to a recent 
decision of this Court in Narendra Purushotam Umrao etc .. v. B. B. 
Gujral & Ors.(') 
where this Court while relying on an earlier 
decision of this Court in Pankaj Kumar ChakrabortY, & Ors. v. State 
of West Bengal(') pointed out that under Clauses 4 and 5 of Art. 
22 of the Constitution the detcnu has a dual right, viz., 
1. to have the representation, irrespective of the length 
of detention, considered by the appropriate Govern-
ment, and 
2. to have the representation considered by the Board 
duly constituted under the concerned Act. 
We might further mention that the constitutional right to file a repre-
sentation to the Government carries with it impliedly a right that the 
representation must be disposed of as quickly as possible and ilny 
unexplained delay would amount to a violation of the constitutional 
guarantee contained in Art. 22<5). 
This Court has 

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