Case: State of Orissa and Another Vs. Shri Manilal Singhania and Another

whether the detention is in accordance with law. But a doubt does begin to gnaw at the mind of the court and, therefore, we are glad that the State Government and the District Magistrate have stated before us that they would not radiation the first respondent on the same material.3. The second ground raises the question whether there was any unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation made by the first respondent against the order of detention. Now, the law is well settled by several decisions of this Court, of which we may refer only to one, namely, Sk. Rashid v. State of West Bengal ((1973) 3 SCC 476 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 376 ), that the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention should be considered by the State Government as soon as possible, that is, with reasonable dispatch and if that is not done, it would have the effect of vitiating the order of detention. It was pointed out by this Court in Sk. Rashids case that [SCC (Cri) pp 377-378, para 4] it is undoubtedly true that neither the Constitution nor the Act expressly provides for the consideration of a detenus representation by the State Government within any specified period of time. The constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioners representation by the State Government has, however, been spelt out by this Court from clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution . . . . This right . . . to have the representation considered at the earliest flows from the constitutional guarantee of the right to personal liberty - a right which is highly cherished in our Republic and its protection against arbitrary and unlawful invasion.But, as pointed out by this Court in the same case, it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid period of time uniformly applicable in all cases within which the representation of a detenu must be considered by the State Government. The Court would have to consider judicially in each case on the available material whether the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the State Government is so unreasonable long and the explanation for the delay offered by the State Government so unsatisfactory as to render the detention order thereafter illegal. We must examine the facts of the present case in the light of this principle for the purpose of determining whether there was any undue delay in consideration of the representation of the first respondent by the State Government.4. The first respondent made a representation against the order of detention on October 21, 1974 and it was received by the District Magistrate on the same day. The District Magistrate despatched the representation of the first respondent together with his parawise comments to the State Government on October 24, 1974 and it was received by the Home Secretary on October 25, 1974. The Home Secretary endorsed the representation to the Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Secretary in his turn endorsed it to the concerned section in his department for examination. Now, it appears that the secretariat was closed for the Pooja holidays from October 20, 1974 to October 27, 1974 (both days inclusive) and October 30, 1974 was also a holiday on account of Kumar Purnima. The assistant dealing with the matter could not, therefore, place the record in regard to the representation before the Head Assistant until October 31, 1974. The Head Assistant examined the representation and submitted his remarks on November 2, 1974 and on November 4, 1974 the Deputy Secretary dealt with the representation. The representation then went to the Secretary and he made his remarks on it on November 5, 1974. The representation was then processed by the Additional Chief Secretary on November 6, 1974 and finally on November 7, 1974 the file was endorsed to the Chief Minister who was incharge of the Home Department. The Chief Minister was absent from headquarters between November 7, 1974 and November 12, 1974 and immediately on return to headquarters, she disposed of the representation and rejected it on November 12, 1974. These facts, which are given in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Home Department, clearly show that there was no undue delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the first respondent. The representation could not straightaway be placed before the Chief Minister for his consideration. It had to be sent to the concerned department for examination and notings and naturally it took time for the representation to move from and notings and naturally it took time for the representation to move from a lower officer to a higher officer before it reached the Chief Minister. What is important to note is that there was no delay at any stage in this movement of the representation from one officer to another. Every officer dealt with the representation promptly and after examining it and making his notings, submitted it to the higher officer. The representation undoubtedly went to the Chief Minister on November 7, 1974 but since the Chief Minister was out of Cuttack, it had to wait till the Chief Minister returned and it is important to note that as soon as she returned, she immediately, without any delay at all, disposed of the representation. We do not, therefore, see any gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the State Government which elapsed between the receipt of the representation and its disposal by the State Government has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary filed on behalf of the State Government. We do not, therefore, agree with the High Court that there was undue delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the first respondent and in the circumstances the order of detention could not be held to be invalid on that ground.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]What is important to note is that there was no delay at any stage in this movement of the representation from one officer to another. Every officer dealt with the representation promptly and after examining it and making his notings, submitted it to the higher officer. The representation undoubtedly went to the Chief Minister on November 7, 1974 but since the Chief Minister was out of Cuttack, it had to wait till the Chief Minister returned and it is important to note that as soon as she returned, she immediately, without any delay at all, disposed of the representation. We do not, therefore, see any gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the State Government which elapsed between the receipt of the representation and its disposal by the State Government has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary filed on behalf of the State Government. We do not, therefore, agree with the High Court that there was undue delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the first respondent and in the circumstances the order of detention could not be held to be invalid on that ground.