IMPORTANT POINT
Where representation to Central Government dated 26.9.2002 was disposed of on 17.10.2002 and events in between showed no undue or unexplained delay in disposal of representation, detention order would not be vitiated.

Headnote:(i) COFEPOSA Act-Section 3(i) (iv) -Preventive detention order-Revocation of detention order against other detenu had no relevance as far appellant was concerned-Non-placing of revocation order of other detenu before Advisory Board did not vitiate detention order against appellant. (Para 10)
       (ii) COFEPOSA Act-Section 3(i) (iv)-Detention order-Representation by detenu in Malayalam language dated 26.9.2002 sent through Superintendent Jail was received in COFEPOSA unit-Comments and English Translation of representation were called from sponsoring authority on 30.9.2002 and were received on 7.10.2002-Representation was rejected on 17.10.2002 and in between there were holidays-There was no undue or unexplained delay in disposing of representation. (Para 11)
       (iii) COFEPOSA Act-Section 3(i) (iv)-Detention order-Challenged on grounds that documents on which grounds of detention were based were in Malayalam and no translation thereof was provided to respondent Central Government and as such there was no effective consideration of representation-English translation of Malayalam representation of detenu and English translation of documents relied upon were available on record at the time of consideration of representation-Detention order was not vitiated. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P.No. 29561 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein, who is the wife of the detenu - T.P. Moideen Koya who is under preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act vide order of detention dated 21.2.2001.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.8.2001 a search was conducted by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs on the residence of one Kunjumon. In the search Indian and Foreign currencies and Gold biscuits were found. During the course of investigation, the statement of Mohd. Mustaffa, driver and employee of the said Kunjumon and P. Mohammed, the cousin of Kunjumon were recorded. According to the prosecution, the detenu is involved in dealing in smuggled goods and, therefore, report was made to the detaining authority for detaining the detenu under Section 3(i) (iv) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The detenu was detained in execution of the order of detention on 4.9.2002 and detained in Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. The detenu submitted his representation to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government and the same were rejected.

4. Safiya, the wife of the detenu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the detention of her husband T.P. Moideen Koya (the detenu) on the grounds that the order of detention of the detenu is primarily based upon the statement recorded from Mohammed Mustaffa, an employee of Kunjumon and that an order of detention was passed against the said Mohammed Mustaffa and he was detained by an order of detention dated 17.10.2001 passed by the detaining authority. The said case was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board submitted in its opinion that there is no ground for detaining the said Mohammed Mustaffa. In accordance with the report of the Advisory Board, the detaining Authority, the State of Kerala, by its order dated 15.1.2002 revoked the detention against the said Mohammed Mustaffa. It is the case of the appellant that since the facts relating to the said Mohammed Mustaffa is similar and arising out of the same set of circumstances and the order of detention having been held to be improper by the Advisory Board and subsequently having been revoked by the State Government, the said facts and materials ought to have been placed before the detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority and the same ought to have been considered before passing the order of detention against the detenu herein. The appellant also raised the contention that there has been inordinate delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the appellant. It was also contended that there is no material to justify the involvement of the detenu and, therefore, the order of detention is based on no material.

5. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the delay in disposing of the representation was reasonable. The High Court passed a detailed judgment considering all the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant before it including the rulings cited before it. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

6. We have perused the pleadings and the other Annexures filed along with this appeal and also the counter affidavits filed by the State Government of Kerala and the Government of India both in the High Court and also in this Court. We heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala.

7. Mr. B. Kumar after inviting our attention to the pleadings raised the following three contentions :-

1. Non-placing of the opinion of the Advisory Board which has opined that there is no sufficient case for detention of the detenu Mohammed Mustaffa involved in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 662

IMPORTANT POINTWhere representation to Central Government dated 26.9.2002 was disposed of on 17.10.2002 and events in between showed no undue or unexplained delay in disposal of representation, detention order would not be vitiated.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where representation to Central Government dated 26.9.2002 was disposed of on 17.10.2002 and events in between showed no undue or unexplained delay in disposal of representation, detention order would not be vitiated.