SALIM RAJMOHMAD MUSLIM versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 03-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SALIM RAJMOHMAD MUSLIM 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
MAY 3, 1988 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5)-Detenu's right of 
representation a valuable constitutional right-Government to ensure 
strict observance of this constitutional safeguard. 
c 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: Section 
3(2)-Detention order-Representation of detenu-Failure of Govern-
ment to consider and dispose of-Whether detention illegal. 
The petitioner, who was detained under sub-section (2) of section 
3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, by an 
D order dated 11th June, 1987 filed a writ petition in this Court, alleging 
that both the detaining authority as also the State Government had not 
considered the representation, dated 15th July, 1987 made by him, with 
utmost promptitude and that, in fact, there was no disposal of the said 
representation by these authorities. 
E 
In the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority, it was 
averred that the representation, received by it on 21st July 1987 was 
duly considered and rejected the same day. 
Allowing the appeal, 
F 
HELD: The right of representation under Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution of India is a valuable and constitutional right. The Govern-
ment is expected to ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied 
in Article 22(5) are strictly observed. [830E-F] 
Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed & Ors., (1987] 4 SCC 58 
G 
reliedon. 
,\ 
' 
...,,,.
~
~ 
In the instant case, the petitioner had the right to make a 
-<. 
representation not only to the detaining authority but also to the State 
Government which had the power to revocation. Although the re-
presentation made by him to the detaining authority has been 
H 
considered and rejected, this is not a substantial compliance of the 
828 
.• ...,.. 
·-
S.R. MUSLIM v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
829 
constitutional rights enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The 
A 
allegation made by the petitioner that he"made a further representation 
to the State Government had not been controverted. The State Govern-
ment had disdained from ,filing any counter-affidavit for obvious 
reasons. [830C-E] · 
The wholly unexplained and unduly long delay-rather the un-
deniable failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of 
the representation, renders the detention of the petitioner illegal. [829G-H] 
The order of detention made under sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 is accordingly 
quashed. [8310] 
CRIMINAL 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ 
Petition 
(Cr!.) No. 124 of 1988; 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
M.C. Kapadia, Y.P. Dhingra, B.K. Satija and S.S. Khanduja for 
the Petitioner. 
P.S. Poti and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
0 R D,E R 
B 
c 
D 
E 
After hearing learned counsel for t!:te parties at quite some 
length, we are satisfied that the failure on the part of the State Govern-
ment to considet·and decide the representation made to them by the 
F 
petitioner against his detention by an order of detention dated 11th 
June, 1987 passed by the Commissioner·of Police, Surat City under 
sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities 
Act, 1985, makes his continued detention invalid and constitutionally 
in:ipermissible. Apart from various other contentions, Shri Kapadia, 
learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that there was no G 
explanation at all as to why the representation made by the petitioner 
to the State Government was not attended to and kept.pending. In view 
of the wholly unexplained and unduly long delay-rather the undeni-
able failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of the 
representation-renders the detention of the petitioner illegal. On the 
view that we take, there is no need to deal with various contentions H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
~. 
raised by him on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel drew 
our attention to paragraph 8(e) of the Writ Petition where the 
petitioner avers inter alia that he had made a representation dated 15th 
July, 1987 to the Police Commissioner, Surat City, as also to the State 
Government but 'both the authorities had not considered the re-
presentation so made with utmost promptitude and that there was in 
fact no disposal of the said representation by 

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