Case: Birendra Kumar Rai Alias Virendra Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and Others

of the Constitution. In reply to the above additional ground a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the period from April 10, 1992 to May 27, 1992 is explained in the following manner. . "2. The detenus representation dated April 10, 1992 against the Section 10(1) declaration as forwarded by Central Jail, Agra, was received in the main registry of the department on April 20, 1992. Since the receipt section of the department is heavily loaded, it appears that the receipt was wrongly marked to some other branch, who returned it to the main registry as is indicated on the representation and thereafter it was sent to this section. In between April 25, 1992 and April 26, 1992 were holidays and the representation was received by the PITNDPS Cell on April 27, 19923. On April 27, 1992, a letter was issued by registered post to the sponsoring authority i.e. Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi for their comments. Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi, vide their letter dated April 30, 1992 gave their comments, which was received in the PITNDPS Cell on May 5, 1992. Within the constraints of office work load in other official matters, the comments offered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi, were examined vis-a-vis the points made in the petition on the following three working days i.e. May, 6, 7 and 8, 1992. Since May 9 and 10, 1992 were holidays, another letter was issued on May 11, 1992 to Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi asking for further detailed comments so that the representation could be considered thoroughly and appropriately4. The detailed comments were forwarded by Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi vide their letter dated May 15, 1992 and the same were received in the PITNDPS Cell on May 20, 1992. Since there were two sets of comments with reference to the petition these were thoroughly examined on May 21 and 22, 1992 May 23 and 24, 1992 being holidays these were submitted with a detailed note on May 25, 1992 and the Honble Finance Minister rejected the representation on May 26, 19925. Vide our memorandum dated May 27, 1992 the detenu was intimated about the result of the representation through the Superintendent, Central Jail Agra, which was receive by the petitioner on June 2, 1992. Though apparently this office has taken one month, the fact is that the representation was given a thorough consideration in consultation with the sponsoring authority twice. Further, one has to take into consideration the time taken in transit. As such there has been no delay at any state and the representation has been processed as expeditiously as possible." 13. A perusal of the above explanation given by the Union of India explains the time taken in dealing with the representation. The period taken by the postal authorities cannot be attributed to any delay or inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities considering such representation. Now if we consider the period after April 20, 1992, it may be noted that some time was taken in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch by the receipt section of the department. However, the representation was received in the concerned section of PITNDPS Cell on April 27, 1992 April 25 and 26, 1992 were holidays. Much stress is laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the time spent during the period the representation was wrongly marked to some other branch. Mr. Tulsi in this regard submitted that it was due to human error and the period spent in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch is not a long one, but only five days We are satisfied with the above submission made by Mr. Tulsi. It may be further noted that this representation was not against the order of detention or any grounds in support of the detention order, but it was a representation against the declaration made under Section 10(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988. The period from April 27, 1992 till May 27, 1992 has been explained in detail in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court and a perusal of the above explanation shows that the time taken cannot be considered so as to draw an inference of inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities. Thus, we do not find any substance in the second ground of challenge levelled by the petitioner against the detention. 14. Before parting with the case we would like to say that this Court has already laid down the law relating to detentions under the preventive detention laws during the last four decades. If the Government takes care that the detention cases arising under the; preventive detention laws are handled by persons fully trained and having experience in such matters, the rights of the citizens can be safeguarded and the preventive detention laws are handled by persons fully trained and having experience in such matters, the rights of the citizens can be safeguarded and the precious time of this Court can be saved. The detaining authorities are required to deal with such cases with more care and circumspection. They should not leave such cases to be dealt with by lower officials and should kept a track on such cases from beginning to the end and also take care that the representations, if any made by the detenus are also dealt with expeditiously without any delay. In matters where the detention orders are passed in relation to such persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should always apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail and stating the necessity, of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. We earnestly hope that the concerned authorities shall deal with such matters with special care.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The admitted facts of the case as also recorded by the High Court in the impugned order show that on November 7, 1990 a complaint had been lodged by the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi against the petitioner, his father and two brothers in the Court of Session Judge, Varanasi and a custody warrant was also issued on November 22, 1990. But the petitioner having already been arrested and detained on November 21, 1990 in the cases under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act and detained in District Jail Ghazipur, the warrant of arrest issued from the Varanasi Court ion Crime Case No. 195 of 1990 was never executed nor the detenu had been brought from District Jail, Ghazipur to the concerned court at Varanasi. In these circumstances, when the petitioner was not taken into custody under the Crime Case No. 195 of 1990 under the NDPS Act, 1985 and continued to remain in District Jail at Ghazipur in Crime Case No. 402 of 1990 under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act till the passing of the detention order on December 4, 1990, there was nothing wrong in mentioning in the grounds of order of detention that the prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 are likely to be initiated against the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that the word likely used in the grounds of detention may not be fully appropriate but this cannot be meant that the detaining authority was not aware of the case pending under NDPS Act, 1985 at Varanasi. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Additional Solicitor General in this regard that till the warrant of arrest issued by the Varanasi Court was executed and the petitioner was brought and produced before the concerned court at Varanasi, the detaining authority was justified in considering that the prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 were likely to be initiated against the petitioner. It may be further noted that in para 19 of grounds of detention it has been clearly mentioned that a bail application on behalf of the petitioner had been filed in the Court of Session Judge, Varanasi on December 3, 1990 and in which the next date of hearing had been fixed for December 7, 1990. Thus, it cannot be said that the detaining authority was not aware or had not applied its mind in respect of the fact that a case under NDPS Act, 1985 was already pending in the court at Varanasi when the detaining authority was mentioning the fact that the petitioner had moved the bail application on December 3, 1990 and which was fixed for hearing on December 7, 1990. So far as the question of the satisfaction of the detaining authority is concerned that there was a compelling necessity for detaining the petitioner in order to prevent him from indulging in Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs, the same depends on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and if sufficient material in this regard was placed before the detaining authority, the court is not entitled to interfere in suchdetaining authority was aware that a bail application had already been filed by the petitioner and the same was to come up for hearing on December 7, 1990 and in these circumstances the detaining authority was justified in recording the satisfaction of compelling necessity of issuing the detention order as it could not have been predicted with certainty that the petitioner would not be released on bail. During the course of the arguments of this case before us, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner and this proves the correctness and legitimacy of the satisfaction of the detaining authority in this regard. There was voluminous documentary evidence placed on record before the detaining authority for passing the order of detention and it cannot be said that there wasof mind in passing the impugned order of detention. The voluminous record available with the detaining authority showed that the petitioner was engaged in illicit traffic in the purchase, sale, possession and abetting the export of Narcotic Drugs in the city of Varanasi which is an area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. There was enough material for the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner and his family were engaged in the clandestine business of preparing and selling heroin for export fromA perusal of the above explanation given by the Union of India explains the time taken in dealing with the representation. The period taken by the postal authorities cannot be attributed to any delay or inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities considering such representation. Now if we consider the period after April 20, 1992, it may be noted that some time was taken in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch by the receipt section of the department. However, the representation was received in the concerned section of PITNDPS Cell on April 27, 1992 April 25 and 26, 1992 were holidays. Much stress is laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the time spent during the period the representation was wrongly marked to some other branch. Mr. Tulsi in this regard submitted that it was due to human error and the period spent in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch is not a long one, but only five days We are satisfied with the above submission made by Mr. Tulsi. It may be further noted that this representation was not against the order of detention or any grounds in support of the detention order, but it was a representation against the declaration made under Section 10(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988. The period from April 27, 1992 till May 27, 1992 has been explained in detail in thefiled before this Court and a perusal of the above explanation shows that the time taken cannot be considered so as to draw an inference of inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities. Thus, we do not find any substance in the second ground of challenge levelled by the petitioner against theBefore parting with the case we would like to say that this Court has already laid down the law relating to detentions under the preventive detention laws during the last four decades. If the Government takes care that the detention cases arising under the; preventive detention laws are handled by persons fully trained and having experience in such matters, the rights of the citizens can be safeguarded and the preventive detention laws are handled by persons fully trained and having experience in such matters, the rights of the citizens can be safeguarded and the precious time of this Court can be saved. The detaining authorities are required to deal with such cases with more care and circumspection. They should not leave such cases to be dealt with by lower officials and should kept a track on such cases from beginning to the end and also take care that the representations, if any made by the detenus are also dealt with expeditiously without any delay. In matters where the detention orders are passed in relation to such persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should always apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail and stating the necessity, of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. We earnestly hope that the concerned authorities shall deal with such matters with special care