IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no hard and fast rule as to measure of reasonable time for disposal of representation of detenu in a preventive detention order and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tepism on facts of a case, Court would not interfere.

Headnote:(i) PREVENTIVE DETENTION — Habeas Corpus Petition on ground of delay in disposal of representation — No hard and fast rule as the measure of reasonable time — Each case to be considered from facts of the case — When there is remissness, in difference or avoidable delay on part of authority, detention becomes vulnerable — Detention order was passed on 1-12-2005 — Representation was sent on 11-12-2005 and was finally rejected on 27-12-2005 — Factual scenario indicated that representation was dealt with utmost expedition — Detention order was not vitiated.
       Held : Coming to the plea that there was delay in disposal of the representation it is to be noted that the order of detention is dated 1.12.2005. The representation was sent on 11.12.2005 which was received by the respondents on 15.12.2005. The details were called for on 16.12.2005 which were received on 20.12.2005. The file was submitted on 21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22.12.2005. The concerned Minister passed order on 22.12.2005 and the order of rejection which was passed on 27.12.2005 was issued on 28.12.2005 which was sent to the Superintendent of the Jail where the detenu was incarcerated, which was communicated to the detenu. It was received by the prison authorities and it was served on the detenu on the day it was received by the Jail authority. The factual scenario indicated above indicates that the representation was dealt with utmost expedition. There can be no hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand. It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with.(Para 6)
       (ii) PREVENTIVE DETENTION — Challenged on ground that confessional statement of co-accused was relied upon but copy thereof was not supplied — Distinction between a relied upon document and a document which has been referred to without being relied on — Grounds of detention merely referred to confession of co-accused and that did not form foundation for detention — High Court was justified in its conclusion that though reference was made to co-accused’s statement that was not relied upon for purpose of detention.
       Held : There is also no substance in the plea that the confessional statement of the co-accused was relied upon, but the copy thereof was not supplied. The grounds of detention merely refer to the confession by the co-accused. That does not form foundation for the detention. On the other hand it appears that the detenu himself made a confession and that was the main factor on which the order of detention was founded. There is distinction between a relied upon document and a document which has been referred to without being relied upon.(Para 7)
       It is not disputed that the confessional statement of the detenu was supplied to him. Above being the factual position the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that though reference was made to co-accused’s statement that was not relied upon for the purpose of detention.(Para 9)
       (iii) PREVENTIVE DETENTION — Challenged on ground that in absence of any bail application filed by detenu, detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail — Only requirement is that detaining authority should be aware that detenu was in custody and was likely to be released on bail — Normally subjective satisfaction is not to be interfered with — Detaining authority indicated that in similar case orders granting bail are passed by Courts — High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of appellant.
       Held : It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another [(2002) 7 SCC 129]. The factual scenario in that case was entirely different. In fact, five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In that background this Court observed that it was not “normal” case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant.(Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. The order of detention passed in respect of Ganapathy @ Undakkuli @ Salve Ganapathy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘detenu’) was questioned by his mother the appellant by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Mainly three grounds were urged in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. It was submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. Further that the detenu had not filed any application for bail, therefore, the detaining authority had committed error in holding that there was imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Further the detaining authority had relied upon the confessional statement of a co-accused without supplying copy thereof. That denied detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid submissions and dismissed the petition.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. It was further submitted that the document which was relied upon has not been supplied to the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in response, submitted that these stands were specifically dealt with and the High Court has discussed the factual and legal positions to reject them.

6. Coming to the plea that there was delay in disposal of the representation it is to be noted that the order of detention is dated 1.12.2005. The representation was sent on 11.12.2005 which was received by the respondents on 15.12.2005. The details were called for on 16.12.2005 which were received on 20.12.2005. The file was submitted on 21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22.12.2005. The concerned Minister passed order on 22.12.2005 and the order of rejection which was passed on 27.12.2005 was issued on 28.12.2005 which was sent to the Superintendent of the Jail where the detenu was incarcerated, which was communicated to the detenu. It was received by the prison authorities and it was served on the detenu on the day it was received by the Jail authority. The factual scenario indicated above indicates that the representation was dealt with utmost expedition. There can be no hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand. It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with.

7. There is also no substance in the plea that the confessional statement of the co-accused was relied upon, but the copy thereof was not supplied. The grounds of detention merely refer to the confession by the co-accused. That does no form foundation for the detention. On the other hand it appears that the detenu himself made a confession and that was the main factor on which the order of detention was founded. There is distinction between a relied upon document and a document which has been referred to without being relied upon. The distinction has been noticed by this Court in Powanammal v. State of T.N. and Anr., (1999(2) SCC 413) at para 9. It was observed as follows :

“However, this Court has maintained a distinc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 547

IMPORTANT POINTThere can be no hard and fast rule as to measure of reasonable time for disposal of representation of detenu in a preventive detention order and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tepism on facts of a case, Court would not interfere.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no hard and fast rule as to measure of reasonable time for disposal of representation of detenu in a preventive detention order and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tepism on facts of a case, Court would not interfere.