Case: Vinod K. Chawla Vs. Union of India and Ors

Court and it was observed that consulting the authority which initiated the proposal can never be said to be an unwarranted exercise. It was further emphasized that whether the delay in considering the representation has been properly explained or not would depend upon the facts of each case and cannot be judged in vacuum. Similarly, in Birendra Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 962 , the petitioner made a representation against his detention on 22.12.1990 which was rejected by the Central Government after a month on 25.1.1991. It was observed that the explanation offered for the delay in consideration of the representation was not such from which an inference of inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities could be inferred and accordingly the challenge on the ground of delay was rejected. The subsequent decisions of this Court are also on the same lines and we do not consider it necessary to refer to them as the principle is well settled that there should be no inaction or lethargy in consideration of the representation and where there is a proper explanation for the time taken in disposal of representation even though it may be long, the continued detention of the detenu would not be rendered illegal in any manner. 12. The grounds of detention in the present case are a long one running into 35 paragraphs which were accompanied by 82 documents running into 447 pages. The representation made by the appellant was also a fairly long one. The representation made by the appellant on 24.3.1998 was received in the Ministry on 27.3.1998. The comments of the sponsoring authority were called on 30.3.1998 which were received on 17.4.1998. The comments were placed before the Secretary (R) through the A.D.G. on 22.4.1998 (18th and 19th being holidays). The decision of the Central Government was taken and communicated on 29.4.1998 (25th and 26th being holidays). The representation was also considered by the detaining authority in the meantime and was rejected on 21.4.1998. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the sponsoring authority before the High Court, it was stated that the representation was received by them on 2.4.1998 and the comments were dispatched on 17.4.1998. During this period, there were holidays on 4th, 5th, 8th to 12th April, and only seven working days were available. Again there were holidays on 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th April. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the entire time taken in consideration and disposal of the representation made by the appellant has been fully explained and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was any inordinate delay or unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the appellant. The challenge to the detention order made on the ground of delay in consideration of the representation made by the appellant has no substance and deserves to be rejected. 13. It was lastly urged that the searches of the premises of the appellant were conducted on 20.12.1996 and 30.12.1996 and his statement was also recorded between 19.12.1996 and 30.1.1997, but he was taken into custody after more than a year on 12.3.1998 and on account of this long delay the live and proximate link in the alleged activities of the appellant and the date of his actual detention was snapped and there was no reasonable cause for detaining the appellant. The argument raised is wholly misconceived. The detention order was passed on 12.2.1997 soon after searches were conducted and his statement had been recorded but as the appellant was evading arrest and was absconding, it could only be served on 12.3.1998 when he was taken into custody. In the counter affidavit filed in the High Court on behalf of the respondents it was averred that continuous efforts were made both by the police authorities as well as the officers of DRI to arrest the appellant. A notice under Section 7(1)(b) of COFEPOSA was published in Official Gazette on 23.3.1997 and also in leading English and Hindi newspapers on 4.10.1997. An application under Section 7(1)(a) of the act was also moved before the Court of ACMM for initiating proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. where proclamation was made on 3.12.1997 to appear on 9.1.1998. An order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued which was brought to the notice of his family members and only then the appellant could be apprehended and detained on 12.3.1998. Reference has also been made to three letters dated 28.2.1997, 17.7.1997 and 5.9.1997 from the Police Headquarters regarding the efforts made to serve the detenu and copies of those letters were placed on record. Every time the family members of the appellant reported before the police that the appellant had left the house on 12.3.1997 to an unknown place and that his whereabouts were not known. An additional affidavit of Assistant Director of Revenue Intelligence was also filed before the High Court wherein it was averred that 11 summons were issued to the appellant during 20.2.1997 and 26.11.1997 and a red alert was also issued by the DRI on 5.3.1997. These facts conclusively established that the detention order which was passed on 12.2.1997 soon after the searches had been made and the statement of the appellant had been recorded, could not be served in spite of every possible attempt had been made to serve him as the appellant was absconding. Where a person himself evades service of detention order, it is not open to him to contend that in view of the long period which has elapsed between the offending activities and the actual arrest and detention, the vital link had snapped and there was no ground for actually detaining him. An otherwise valid detention order cannot be rendered invalid on account of the own act of the detenu of evading arrest and making himself scarce. The contention thus raised has absolutely no merit and has to be rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. We would like to clarify here that the law does not require that every document or material in possession of sponsoring authority must necessarily be placed by him before the detaining authority and in every case where any such document or material is not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, the formation of opinion and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would get vitiated. This view has been taken in several decisions of this Court10. The contention raised cannot be judged by any straight jacket formula divorced from facts. This has to be examined with reference to the facts of each case having regard to the volume and contents of the grounds of detention, the documents supplied along with the grounds, the inquiry to be made by the officers of different departments, the nature of the inquiry, the time required for examining the various pleas raised, the time required in recording the comments by the authorities of the departments concerned, and so on12. The grounds of detention in the present case are a long one running into 35 paragraphs which were accompanied by 82 documents running into 447 pages. The representation made by the appellant was also a fairly long one. The representation made by the appellant on 24.3.1998 was received in the Ministry on 27.3.1998. The comments of the sponsoring authority were called on 30.3.1998 which were received on 17.4.1998. The comments were placed before the Secretary (R) through the A.D.G. on 22.4.1998 (18th and 19th being holidays). The decision of the Central Government was taken and communicated on 29.4.1998 (25th and 26th being holidays). The representation was also considered by the detaining authority in the meantime and was rejected on 21.4.1998. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the sponsoring authority before the High Court, it was stated that the representation was received by them on 2.4.1998 and the comments were dispatched on 17.4.1998. During this period, there were holidays on 4th, 5th, 8th to 12th April, and only seven working days were available. Again there were holidays on 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th April. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the entire time taken in consideration and disposal of the representation made by the appellant has been fully explained and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was any inordinate delay or unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the appellant. The challenge to the detention order made on the ground of delay in consideration of the representation made by the appellant has no substance and deserves to be rejected13. It was lastly urged that the searches of the premises of the appellant were conducted on 20.12.1996 and 30.12.1996 and his statement was also recorded between 19.12.1996 and 30.1.1997, but he was taken into custody after more than a year on 12.3.1998 and on account of this long delay the live and proximate link in the alleged activities of the appellant and the date of his actual detention was snapped and there was no reasonable cause for detaining the appellant. The argument raised is wholly misconceived. The detention order was passed on 12.2.1997 soon after searches were conducted and his statement had been recorded but as the appellant was evading arrest and was absconding, it could only be served on 12.3.1998 when he was taken into custody. In the counter affidavit filed in the High Court on behalf of the respondents it was averred that continuous efforts were made both by the police authorities as well as the officers of DRI to arrest the appellant. A notice under Section 7(1)(b) of COFEPOSA was published in Official Gazette on 23.3.1997 and also in leading English and Hindi newspapers on 4.10.1997. An application under Section 7(1)(a) of the act was also moved before the Court of ACMM for initiating proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. where proclamation was made on 3.12.1997 to appear on 9.1.1998. An order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued which was brought to the notice of his family members and only then the appellant could be apprehended and detained on 12.3.1998. Reference has also been made to three letters dated 28.2.1997, 17.7.1997 and 5.9.1997 from the Police Headquarters regarding the efforts made to serve the detenu and copies of those letters were placed on record. Every time the family members of the appellant reported before the police that the appellant had left the house on 12.3.1997 to an unknown place and that his whereabouts were not known. An additional affidavit of Assistant Director of Revenue Intelligence was also filed before the High Court wherein it was averred that 11 summons were issued to the appellant during 20.2.1997 and 26.11.1997 and a red alert was also issued by the DRI on 5.3.1997. These facts conclusively established that the detention order which was passed on 12.2.1997 soon after the searches had been made and the statement of the appellant had been recorded, could not be served in spite of every possible attempt had been made to serve him as the appellant was absconding. Where a person himself evades service of detention order, it is not open to him to contend that in view of the long period which has elapsed between the offending activities and the actual arrest and detention, the vital link had snapped and there was no ground for actually detaining him. An otherwise valid detention order cannot be rendered invalid on account of the own act of the detenu of evading arrest and making himself scarce. The contention thus raised has absolutely no merit and has to be rejected.