S.M JAHUBAR SATHIK versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 13-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.M JAHUBAR SA THIK 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S .. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-Sections 3(1) (i} and 9(1)-Representation made to 
Central Government against Order passed under Section 9(1)-Representation 
C rejected in 49 days after thrice seeking clarifications on issues which did not 
really arise and were not necessary-Held, it cannot be said that the 
representation was disposed of with promptitude-Clarifications were only 
sought to cover up the delay-Delay & Laches-Constitution of India, Art. 
226. 
D 
Appellant was detained in pursuance of an order passed under Section 
3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act 
was made. The appellant challenged these orders before High Court by filing 
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant 
E also made a representation against the order passed under Section 9(1) of 
the Act to the Central Government on 8/10.12.1997, which was rejected on 
2/2/1998. The writ petition of the appellant in the High Court was thereafter 
dismissed. Against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred 
the present appeal. 
F 
The contention of the appellant was that the representation to the 
Central Government was rejected after an inordinate delay for which no 
reasonable explanation has been provided by the respondents. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : l. A perusal of the original file reveals that the clarifications 
sought by the respondents for disposing of the representation were sought 
in the usual bureaucratic style only for the sake of clarification without 
there being any need for it. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that 
the representation was disposed of with promptitude. On the contrary, even 
the explanation offered by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed 
H before the High Court indicates the lethargic attitude with which the 
~ 
628 
-
-
1 
~· , 
S.M. JAHUBAR SA THIK v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
629 
representation was taken up, dealt with and ultimately disposed of. The A 
representation could have been disposed of without seeking clarification 
which obviously was sought to cover Up the delay in prompt disposal of the 
representation. [633-F-Gl 
2. The matter was not considered by the High Court in the right 
perspective. (633-H) 
B 
3. The detention order;passed under Section 3(1) (i) of the COFEPOSA 
Act and also the declaration made under Section 9(1) of the Act are quashed. 
(634-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. C 
435of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.98 of the Madras High Court 
in H.C.P. No. lO l of 1998. 
R. Mohan and A.S. Nambiar and K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
D 
V.G. Pragasam, A.D.N. Rao, Rajeev Sharma and P. Parameshwaran for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 
E 
The appellant has been detained in pursuance of an order dated 4. l l. l 997 
passed under Section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act'). This was 
followed by a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act which was made on 
27.l l.1997. These orders were challenged by the appellant before the Madras F 
High Court by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 
which was dismissed on 15.12.1998. It is against this judgment that the 
present appeal has been filed. 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that against the G 
order dated 27. ! l.l 997 passed under Section 9( l) of the Act, the appellant had 
made a representation to the Central Government on 8/10.12.1997. But the 
representation was rejected after an inordinate delay for which no reasonable 
explanation has been provided by the respondents. In the counter affidavit 
filed before the High Court in this case, the respondents ·had sought to 
explain the delay as under:-
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
"9. With regard to averments made in Para 8 (xxxviii) it is humbly 
submitted that the representation dated 08.12.1997 (actually dated 
10.12.1997) was received in the.office of the Department of Revenue 
on 15.12.1997 from the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The s

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