SHYAM AMBALAL SIROYA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1078 · Decided: 20-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1078 
A 
SHYAM AMBALAL SIROYA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
February 20, 1980 
8 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of S1nuggling Activities 
A.ct. 1974--Sectton 11-Detenu's representation for revocation of dete1Jtion 
order not considered by Government-Non-consideration, if vitiates the order. 
The petitioner's brother was detained by an order of detention dated 31st 
August, 1979 under s. 3 (I) of the Comervation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the grounds of detention 
were served on him on 5th September, 1979. 
An -application was made on 
17th September, 1979 for supply of documents and statements recorded and 
relied on in the grounds of detention. 
On 22nd September, 1979 he made an 
mcomplete representation. 
The dcx:uments were supplied on 25th September, 
27th September and 3rd October, 1979. The detenu made a second repr06en-
tation on 5th October, 1979 requesting that the order of detention be revoked 
by the Central Government but no action was taken on them till the date of 
hearing. 
In the writ petition it was alleged that the first representation as well as the 
second representation requesting for the revocation of the order under e. 11 
of the Act were not considered by the Central Government and that non-
consideration of .the representation vitiated the detention order. The detaining 
S 
authority on the other hand contended that th'e mere f1act that the representa-
tion was not considered by the Central Government did not vitiate the order 
of detention. 
(I 
H 
Allowing the petition, 
HEID : The continued detention of the detenu cannot be held to be accord-
ing to procedure. 
[1081FJ 
If a properly addressed petition is left unattended for a long period of 
time the detention order cannot be justified as being accordir-g to procedure. 
[1081 El 
The power conferred on the Central Government by section 11 of the 
Act is wide enough to 'enable that Government to revoke the detention order 
at any stage for the words used are a detention order may at any tlme be 
revoked or nlodified. 
Any petition for revoca.tion of an order of detention 
should be dealt with with reasonable expedition. It may be permissible for 
the (~entra1 Government to take reasonable time for disposing of a petition 
for revocation of an order of detention but it would not be justified in ignoring 
the representation because a statutory duty is cast upon the Central Govern~ 
ment. 
It is necessary that the Government should apply its mind and either 
revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition. 
[1080G· HJ 
In the instant case the representation which was properly addressed by the 
detenu to the Central Government was not forwarded to that Government and 
l 
' 
• 
SHYAM AMBALAL v. UNION (Kailasam, J.) 
1079 
as such no action had be'en taken till the date of hearing. There is no justifica~ 
A 
tion in sending the representa.tion to the Central Govemm'ent at this very late 
stage. 
[IOSIC&E] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 1414 of 1979. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
• 
Ram Jethamalani and Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner. 
B 
U. R. Lalit, E. C. Agarwala and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
· fhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAILASAM, J. The petitioner is brother of Virendra Ambalal Siroya 
who was detained by an order of detention dated 31-8-1979 issued by 
Additional Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3 (1) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti-
vities Act, 1974. The detenu was served with the grounds of deten-
tion on 5-9-1979. 
The counsel for the detenu made an application on 
17-9-1979 for supply of documents, and statements recorded and 
relied on in the grounds of detention. 
Before the documents were 
supplied, an incomplete representation was made by the detenu on 
22-9-1979. 
The documents were supplied on 25-9-1979, 27-9-1979 
lllld 3-10-1979. 
The detenu again made a second representation on 
5-10-1979 and requested that the order of detention may be revoked 
by the Central Government. 
Mr. A. K. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted 
that the representation requesting the Central Government to order the 
revocation under S. 11 of the Act was not forwarded by the_ detaining 
authority to the Central Government and as such the detention is ille-
gal, 
In the memorandum of groun

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