Case: D. Anuradha Vs. Joint Secretary &amp; Another

Union of India and in Shanker Raju Shetty v. Union of India. We do not doubt that the representation made by the detenu has to be considered by the Detaining Authority with the utmost expedition but as observed by one of us in Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra ?the time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive?. The occasional observations made by this Court that each day?s delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a magical formula, the slightest breach of which must result in the release of the detenu. Law deals with the facts of life. In law, as in life, there are no invariable absolutes. Neither life nor law can be reduced to mere but despotic formulae.? 21. Considering the entire facts, we do not think that in this case the detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that one out of the five representations was not disposed of in time. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and the failure to get the translated copy of the representation was an unavoidable delay. We do emphasise that such delays should be avoided. 22. The contention raised by the appellant?s learned Counsel is that some of the relevant materials were not placed before the Detaining Authority and the omission to place those materials before the Detaining Authority had caused serious prejudice to the detenu. It was urged that the investigating authorities had collected the materials and once these materials were received by the Sponsoring Authority, they had no right to edit and decide which materials were relevant and they were bound to send the entire materials to the Detaining Authority. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to some of the relevant documents which were not placed before the Detaining Authority. This contention was elaborately considered by the Division Bench and it was held that all relevant materials were placed before the Detaining Authority. 23. The contention of the appellant is that the reply of N.C. Rangesh and several other documents were not placed before the Detaining Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority was incorrect and the detention was illegal. It was contended that the Sponsoring Authority did not place the statements of N.C. Rangesh and another Rajoo which are relevant and vital documents, in passing of the detention order. It may be noted that in the reply of N.C. Rangesh, he has stated that he is a lawyer in Singapore and that the detenu had taken legal assistance and that he was not obliged to reveal the materials as they were confidential communications. Therefore, it is clear that the statement of N.C. Rangesh was of no consequence and the Sponsoring Authority rightly withheld the same as it was irrelevant. Moreover, the detention order itself is passed on various grounds and even if some materials are not placed therefore the Detaining Authority, it would only affect one of the grounds stated in the detention order and the detention order by itself is sufficient to stand on its own on the basis of other grounds. The detention as a whole cannot be held to be illegal. If there are severable grounds, the vague nature of one of the grounds would not vitiate the entire detention order. 24. In Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu, VIII (1999) SLT 568=IV (1999) CCR 187 (SC)=(1999) 8 SCC 473 , referring to the cases of Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, Addl. Chief Secy. to the Govt. of Gujarat, (1979) 1 SCC 222 ; Ayya v. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 374 ; Sita Ram Somani v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 2 SCC 86 , this Court held: ?A man is to be detained in the prison based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. Every conceivable material which is relevant and vital which may have a bearing on the issue should be placed before the Detaining Authority. The Sponsoring Authority should not keep it back, based on his interpretation that it would not be of any help to a prospective detenu. The decision is not to be made by the Sponsoring Authority. The law on the subject is well settled; a detention order vitiates if any relevant document is not placed before the Detaining Authority which reasonably could effect his decision.? 25. In the instant case, the statement of Rangesh did not divulge any details which would have in any way affected the decision of the Detaining Authority. 26. The learned Counsel for the appellant lastly contended that since the detention order was passed only in February 1996, that is, after about two years of the alleged involvement of the detenu for violation of the provisions of FERA on the basis of stale materials, the same was illegal. The allegations made against the detenu are of serious nature. It involved several crores of rupees. The various transactions had been done in a clandestine manner with the help of foreign nationals and the detenu himself had claimed to be a Non-Resident Indian. All these materials had contributed to the delay and the Detaining Authority had to consider these materials and cross-check the transactions. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the detention order was not passed on stale materials. 27. The learned Counsel for the appellant had urged before the High Court that the detenu was a non-resident Indian and, therefore, the detention order could not have been passed against him. This contention was elaborately considered in point No. 1 in the impugned judgment and it was held that the detenu was not a Non-resident Indian. No materials have been placed before us to prove that he was a Non-resident Indian and, therefore, beyond the ken of the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The order of detention was rightly passed and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]On a survey of the various authorities, it is clear that the representation, if any, submitted on behalf of the detenu shall receive immediate attention and that the same shall be considered by the Appropriate Authorities as expeditiously as possible. Any delay would naturally cause prejudice to the detenu17. In the instant case, as already noticed, the detenu himself filed two representations and on his behalf, his Counsel submitted another two representations and there is no allegation that these representations were not considered in time. But the representation filed by the present appellant, the wife of the detenu was disposed of only with a delay of 119 days. The delay was caused mainly due to non-availability of the translated copy of the representation. The representation was made in ?Tamil? and it is submitted by the Union Government that it took about three months to get a proper translation of the representation and as soon as the translation was received, the authorities took urgent steps and it was disposed of within a short period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that there was inordinate delay in disposing of the representation21. Considering the entire facts, we do not think that in this case the detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that one out of the five representations was not disposed of in time. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and the failure to get the translated copy of the representation was an unavoidable delay. We do emphasise that such delays should be avoided25. In the instant case, the statement of Rangesh did not divulge any details which would have in any way affected the decision of the Detaining AuthorityThe learned Counsel for the appellant lastly contended that since the detention order was passed only in February 1996, that is, after about two years of the alleged involvement of the detenu for violation of the provisions of FERA on the basis of stale materials, the same was illegal. The allegations made against the detenu are of serious nature. It involved several crores of rupees. The various transactions had been done in a clandestine manner with the help of foreign nationals and the detenu himself had claimed to be at Indian. All these materials had contributed to the delay and the Detaining Authority had to consider these materials andk the transactions. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the detention order was not passed on stale materialsThe learned Counsel for the appellant had urged before the High Court that the detenu was at Indian and, therefore, the detention order could not have been passed against him. This contention was elaborately considered in point No. 1 in the impugned judgment and it was held that the detenu was not at Indian. No materials have been placed before us to prove that he was at Indian and, therefore, beyond the ken of the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The order of detention was rightly passed and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.