Case: Salim Vs. State Of West Bengal

February were closed days and he was during the particular period "extremely busy" due to "heavy rush of work." This explanation was accepted by the Court as satisfactory. In coming to the conclusion that there was no violation of the requirement that the report should be made forthwith, the Constitution Bench relied on Joglekars case 1956 SCR 653 = (AIR 1957 SC 28 ) and on the following passage which occurred in Maxwells 11th edition at page 341:When a statute requires that something shall be done "forthwith", or "immediately" or even "instantly", it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it."10. Thus, forthwith does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without avoidable or unreasonable delay.11. In Hillingdon London Borough Council v. Cutler, (1968) 1 QB 124 at p. 135 Harman L. J. while holding that the concept of forthwith does not exclude the allowance of a reasonable time for doing the act, qualified his formulation by adding the rider "provided that no harm is done." Applying that test, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the late making of the report. The State Government could approve the detention any time before June 25, the order having been passed on June 13. The report was made to the State Government on June 15 which still left to it a margin of about 10, days to consider the merits of the order. It cannot be said that the delay in making the report left to the State Government insufficient time to consider whether the order of detention should be approved. The order was in fact approved on June 21, much before the expiry of the statutory period of 12 days.12. The District Magistrate, it must be stated, has not explained in his affidavit why he did not report the fact of detention to the State Government promptly. The order is dated June 13 and if not on the 15th itself, he should have in normal circumstances made his report on the 14th. Such remissness on the part of detaining authorities is not to be encouraged but it ought to be stated that counsel for the State Government had asked for an adjournment to enable the District Magistrate to file a supplementary affidavit for explaining the delay. We did not grant the adjournment, as we were inclined to the view that the interval between the date of the order and the date of the report is not so long as to require an explanation on oath. The date on which the order was passed may, even according to the petitioners counsel, be left out of the reckoning. That accounts for the 13th. The report was made on the 15th and there is some authority for the proposition that an act may be taken as done "at the first moment of the day on which it was performed" (See Maxwell, 12th Ed. pp. 331-312). That takes care of the 15th. All that can therefore be said is that there was one days delay in making the report. We are not inclined to dismiss as untrue the oral explanation offered on behalf of the District Magistrate that he could not make the report on the 14th due to administrative difficulties. As it cannot be said that the District Magistrate had slept over the order or was "lounging supinely" over it and since the explanation of one days delay may be accepted as reasonable, there is no violation of the requirement that the report to the State Government shall be made forthwith.13. A few other contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner but we see no substance in any one of them. It is contended that Section 3 (4) has been violated because the State Government did not make a report to the Central Government within 7 days of the date of the order of detention. The short answer to this contention is that the period of 7 days has to be reckoned from the date on which the State Government approved order and not from the date on which the District Magistrate passed the order. If the order were made by the State Government the report would have been required to be made to the Central Government within 7 days of the date of the order; but the order in the instant case was approved and not made by the State Government. It was then said that there was no proximity between the incidents leading to the detention and the order of detention as there was a gap of about 4 months in between The explanation of the interval is that the petitioner was being prosecuted and an order of discharge had to be obtained on June 17, 1972. The order of detention was passed 4 days before the order of discharge was passed. It is next contended that the State Government having rejected the petitioners representation the very next day that it was received, it must be held that it did not apply its mind to the representation. We do not suppose that the length of time which a decision takes necessarily reflects the care or openness brought to bear upon it. The answer to yet another contention that the entire material which influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate in passing the order of detention was not supplied to the petitioner is that according to the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, nothing apart from what is stated in the grounds and the particulars was taken into account while passing the order of detention. The last submission that the petitioner could have been prosecuted for the acts attributed to him has been answered by this Court in numerous cases by saying that the availability of an alternate remedy is not by itself an effective answer to the validity of the detention.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is an established rule of construction that unless the language of the statute is ambiguous, the words used by the legislature ought to be given their plain, literal meaning. But it is equally important that by no rule of construction may the words of a statute be so interpreted as to bring about absurd situations in practice. The stranglehold of stark literalness has therefore to be avoided in order to give a rational meaning and content to the language used in the statute. Thus, though the word forthwith cannot be construed so as to permit indolence or laxity on the part-of the officer charged with the duty of reporting the detention to the State Government, reasonable allowance has to be made for unavoidable delays, always remembering that the detaining authority must explain any long delay by pointing out circumstances due to which the report to the State Government could not be made with the greatest promptitude.Thus, forthwith does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without avoidable or unreasonable delay.The District Magistrate, it must be stated, has not explained in his affidavit why he did not report the fact of detention to the State Government promptly. The order is dated June 13 and if not on the 15th itself, he should have in normal circumstances made his report on the 14th. Such remissness on the part of detaining authorities is not to be encouraged but it ought to be stated that counsel for the State Government had asked for an adjournment to enable the District Magistrate to file a supplementary affidavit for explaining the delay. We did not grant the adjournment, as we were inclined to the view that the interval between the date of the order and the date of the report is not so long as to require an explanation on oath. The date on which the order was passed may, even according to the petitioners counsel, be left out of the reckoning. That accounts for the 13th. The report was made on the 15th and there is some authority for the proposition that an act may be taken as done "at the first moment of the day on which it was performed"That takes care of the 15th. All that can therefore be said is that there was one days delay in making the report. We are not inclined to dismiss as untrue the oral explanation offered on behalf of the District Magistrate that he could not make the report on the 14th due to administrative difficulties. As it cannot be said that the District Magistrate had slept over the order or was "lounging supinely" over it and since the explanation of one days delay may be accepted as reasonable, there is no violation of the requirement that the report to the State Government shall be madedo not suppose that the length of time which a decision takes necessarily reflects the care or openness brought to bear upon it. The answer to yet another contention that the entire material which influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate in passing the order of detention was not supplied to the petitioner is that according to the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, nothing apart from what is stated in the grounds and the particulars was taken into account while passing the order oflast submission that the petitioner could have been prosecuted for the acts attributed to him has been answered by this Court in numerous cases by saying that the availability of an alternate remedy is not by itself an effective answer to the validity of the detention.