1. Challenge to detention orders issued under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : R.P.Sethi : Shivaraj V.Patil
Rupesh Kantilal Savla
Versus
State Of Gujarat
Case No. : 52 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/4/00
Advocates Appeared: Ahmed Altaf : Arora Meenakshi : Bhan Ashok : Bhandari Varuna : Desai Ashok H. : Dholakia S.K. : Hazarika Sumita : Jain R.K. : Kabir Nasser : Mahra D.S. : Nanda Rajiv : Prajapate H.R. : Shah S.A. : Wahi H.
Failure to dispose of a detenu's representation with reasonable despatch, without providing a valid explanation for the delay, infringes the constitutional right under Article 22(5), rendering the detention order invalid.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Section 3 - Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - Detention order - Disposal of representation - Representation of the detenu must be disposed of with reasonable despatch - Failure to offer explanation for delay in disposing of representation infringes the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Detention order liable to be set aside on this sole ground. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Petitions were filed challenging orders of detention issued by the District Magistrate. It was averred that the representation made by the detenu to the appropriate authority was not disposed of with reasonable despatch. Although an affidavit was filed by the authority, no explanation was offered for the delay in disposal occurring between 18th March and 1st May.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appropriate authority failed to indicate why the representation could not be disposed of during the specified period. This failure resulted in the infringement of the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the lack of reasonable despatch in disposing of a detenu's representation, coupled with a lack of explanation for the delay, violates constitutional protections and renders the detention order illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right of a detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is infringed when a representation is not disposed of with reasonable despatch and no explanation is provided for the delay, justifying the setting aside of the detention order.
Result: Impugned order of detention set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Legality of detention orders — failure of the Central Government to dispose of the detenu's representation with reasonable despatch. (Para 2 )
3. Failure of the Central Government to explain the delay in disposing of a representation infringes the detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
4. Failure to dispose of a detenu's representation with reasonable despatch constitutes an infringement of the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned orders of detention set aside and writ petitions disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Should there be a prescribed time limit for disposing of habeas corpus petitions?
While there may be no specific rule prescribing a period, it is meet and proper for every High Court to dispose of habeas corpus petitions as expeditiously as possible. (Para 1 )
7. What is the legal consequence of failing to dispose of a detenu's representation with reasonable despatch?
Failure to dispose of a detenu's representation with reasonable despatch infringes the detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which can lead to the setting aside of the detention order. (Para 2 )
(1) IN each of these petitions, order of detention issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the provisions of the Prevention of Black- marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is under challenge. Since it had been averred in the writ petition itself that the Gujarat High Court is taking an unusually long period in disposing of the detention matter, and it was told to us that there is no rule prescribing a period within which an application for habeas corpus is disposed of, we entertained these petitions. Even if there is no rule, it would be meet and proper for every High Court to dispose of the habeas corpus petition as expeditiously as possible.
(2) MR Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the detenu in each of these cases raised a large number of contentions in assailing the legality of the order of detention but it is not necessary for us to delve into all those grounds. Since the matter can be disposed of on the sole ground that the representation of the detenu to the Central Government has not been disposed of with reasonable despatch, though the Central Government has filed an affidavit in these cases but no explanation has been offered. From the affidavit filed it transpires that the Central Government has not indicated as to why the representation could not be disposed of between the dates 18th March to 1st May. Though, for the period 5th February to 18th February there is some explanation. Since the Central Government has not offered any explanation for the delay, the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution must be held to be infringed thereby. On the sole ground, we, therefore, set aside the impugned order of detention in each of these cases.
(3) THE writ petitions are disposed of.
