SABIR AHMED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 18-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA, R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
' \ 
738 
SABIR AHMED 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
April, 18, 1980 
(R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J 
Conservarion of Foreign Exchange and PrevenJion of S1nuggling Activities 
Act, 1974, Section 11, Scope of-Whether Central 
Goverrunen\ is bound ro 
consider the application of the detenu's representation and non-consideration 
thereof is illegal-Whether it is a Constitutional right of the detenue. 
The pletitioner challenged the detention of his 
brother Dawood 
Hasan 
Sheikh Ibrahim, under, the Conservation of 'Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed on Octo-
ber 2, 1979 by the detaining authority. The representation made by ~e detenu 
on November 14, 1979 to the detaining authority in which inter alia he asked 
for supply of the copies of dbcuments and statements relied upon in· the- grounds 
of detention, was rejected on December 10, 1979 by the Minister of State in 
the Home Ministry of State Government, by virtue of the authorisation to 
deal with the r:epresentations of detenus by a 
Standing Order made by the 
Chief Minister on December 3, 1979. In the meantime, the Advisory Board 
met and 
considered' the representation of the detenue and made a report 
to the Government on December 6, 1979. The said Minister had dealt with 
the representation and rejected it after the Board had· made its report to the 
Gcivernment. 
On November 19·, 1979, the detenu made 
an application io the 
Central 
'Govemmeht for revocation of the order of his detention under section 11 of 
COFEPOSA and this has not been dealt with by that Government. 
The petitioner inter alia, contended that the detenu had a right to 
move 
the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention and non· 
consideration vitiates the . detention. 
Allowing the petition, the Court , 
HEID: ! ,Section 3(2) of COFEPOSA lll<llldates the State Government 
'tO; send a . report to the Central Government. 
But it does not mean that the 
G 
representation made by the detenu, if any, should also be sent along with that 
report, [7 42 El 
H 
2. The Central Government is under a duty to consider the representation 
made to- it by the detenu for revoking his detention, even if it s-imply repeats 
the same allegations, statement of facts, and ar~ments which were contained 
in the representation made: to the detaining authority. .It is common experience 
that an argument or submission based on certain facts, which does not appeal 
-to a tribunal or authOfity of first instance, - may find acceptance with a higher 
tribunal or supetvisory authority. [742 E·FJ 
, 
, 
SABIR AHMBD v. UNION (Sarkaria, !.) 
739 
3. Whether or not the detenu has under Section 11 a legal right to make 
a representation to the Central Government is not the real question. The nub 
of the matter is, whether the power conf~rred by Section 11 on the Central· ' 
Government, carried with it a duty to consider any representation 
made by 
the deteD.u, expeditiously. The power under Section 11 may either be exercised 
if on information received by the Central Government from its own sources 
including that supplied undor Sectio.n 3 by the State Government, or, from the 
detenu in the form of a petition or representation. , Whether or not the Cen-
tral Gov~rnment on such petitioll/representation revokes the detention is 
a 
matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a duty, that duty 
is inherent in the very nature of the jurisdiction. [742 F-H, 743 A] 
A 
B 
4. The power under s'ection 11 is a supervisory powe(. It is intended to 
be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power 
of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government. If this sta· 
C 
tutory safeguard is to retain its meaning and efficacy, the Central Government 
must discharge its supervisory responsibility with constant 'vigilance and watch-
ful care. The· report received 
under section 3, or any 
communication or 
petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedi-
tion. [743 A-BJ 
S. What is 'reasonable expedition' is a question depending on the circums-
D 
ta~ of the particular case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of 
reasonable time can be laid down. 
But it certainly does not cover the delay 
d,ue to' negligence, callous. inaction, avoidable redtapism and unduly protracted 
procrastination. [743 B-Cl 
' 
In the instant case, in the absence of a specific d

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