RAMCHANDRA A. KAMAT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 20-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1072 
RAMCHANDRA A. KAMAT 
v .. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
February 20, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exahange and Prevention of Smuggling Activittes 
Act 1974, Section 3-Delay by detaining authority in furnishing copies of 
statements and documents referred to in the order of deten(ofV-Detention 
whether viJiared. 
The petitioner was directed to ·be detained by an order dated1 August 31 1 
1979 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange :ind Pre-
vention of. Smuggling A.ctivities Act, 1974 and in 
pursuance 
thereof 
was 
arrested on September 5, 1979. 
He was served with the grounds of detention 
on the same day. The petitioner's advocate wrote a letter dated September 7, 
1979 to the detaining authority-second respondent stating that it was not 
possible to 1nake an effective representation without the copies of statements 
and documents referr'ed to in detention order. The detaining authority did not 
take any action on the letter but forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary tv the 
Government of India who by a oommunication dated September 10, 1979 
acknowledged its receipt ,arut requested the advocate to contact the Deputy 
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bombay regarding the· supply of copies of 
statements and documents. 
As no further communication was received, the 
advocate addressed a letter da.ted September 14, 1979 to the Deputy Direct.or 
to supply him copies of the statements and documents. 
The Deputy Director 
in his communication dated September 22, 1979 requested the advocate to see 
him on September 24, 1979 to take inspection of the documents. 
On insp~ct-
ing the docun1ents the advocate was not satisfied and insisted on supply of 
copies of docun1rnts, Which were supplied on three days, September 26, 1979, 
September 28. 1979 and September 29, 1979. 
On October 5. 1979 the peti-
tioner made his representation a.gainst the detention. 
In the writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as 
there was unrcas.onab1e delay in furnishing of the statements and documt:nts 
referred to in the grounds of detention and the right to make an 
effective 
J 
P 
representation \WlS denied, the detention could not be said to be according to 
the procedure prescribed by law. 
On beha·lf of the detaining authority it wc:s 
contended rhat the constitutional right of the p'etitioner to make an effective 
representation had not been infringed and that it was not incumbent upon the 
detaining authority to supply copies of all documents relied up0n in ~he grounds 
of detention and that the grounds of detention were sufficiently det.aileJ Si) as 
to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation against the deten-
G 
lion. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : 1. The detaining authority failed to act with reasonable 
expedi~ 
tton in furnishing the statements and documents referred to in the gr')unds of 
detention. 
The detention is therefore not in accordance with the proc·l;!ctu1e 
contemplated under law, and the 
continued 
detention 
is 
not warranted. 
H 
[1077Gl 
2. It is r.ettled law that the 34>PJYJpriate authority is bound to give s.n opnor-
tunity to the cletenu to make representation and to consider the representation 
• 
RAMACHANDRA A. KAMAT v. UNION (Kailasam, !.) 
107 ,J 
of the detenu as early as possible. 
There should not be any delay in .the 
A 
matter of consideration. 
[ 107 4G] 
Jayanarayan Sukut v. Shue of West Bengal, [1970] 3 SCR 225, referred to. 
3. (i) The right to make a representation is a fundamental 
right. 
The 
representation thus made should be considered expeditiously by the Government. 
In order to make an effective representation, the detenu is entitled to obtain 
information re~ating to the grounds nf detention. When the grounds uf deten-
tion are served on the detenue he is entitl'ed to ask for copies of the state-
ments and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him 
to make - an effective representation. When the detenu makes a request for 
such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously. 
[!075E] 
(ii) When the Act contemplates the furnishing of grounds of detention 
within five days of the order of detention, the intention is clear that the state· 
ments and dncurr1ents which are referred to in the grounds of deteution and 
\vhich are required by the d'etenu should be furnished with reasonable expedi .. 
tion. 
[1076B] 
4. If 

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