JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is the wife of one Arun Gawali (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") impugns the detention order dated 27th September, 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The detenu, along with six others, was arrested by the Officers of the Crime Branch, Bombay, on 20th July, 1990 in connection with an offence of murder registered at the Tardeo Police Station vide their C.R. No. 287 of 1990. Since the police had invoked the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the detenu and others were produced before the Designated Court on 23rd July, 1990 and were remanded to police custody. On completion of the investigation, they were chargesheeted in two separate cases being TADA Special Case No. 42 of 1991 and TADA Special Case No. 51 of 1991. After a full-fledged trial in TADA Special Case No. 42 of 1991, the Designated Court vide its judgment and order dated 27th September, 1993, acquitted the detenu and others and ordered their immediate release. After the pronouncement of this judgment and on completing the necessary formalities before the Registrar of the Sessions Court in Bombay, the detenu was taken back to Yerwada Central Prison. However, he was not released on that day and on 28-9-1993 at about 9.00 a.m., he was served with a detention order dated 27th September, 1993 passed by the 1st respondent, the Bombay Police Commissioner, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act. By a separate order of the same date, the detenu was directed to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison at Pune. On 30th September, 1993, the detenu was served with a copy of the grounds of detention in English and Marathi in Yerwada Central Prison. He was also served with the copies of the documents forming part of the compilation along with an index of documents in Marathi. A Corrigendum of the detention order was served on him on 3rd October, 1993 for some correction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, as stated above, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.

3. A number of grounds are taken in the writ petition in order to challenge the constitutional validity and legality of the impugned detention order. However, it is not necessary to deal with all of them as the petition should succeed on a single ground that there was undue and unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government (respondent No. 4). Thus, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that there was a delay of 29 days in considering the representation of the detenu and a further delay of 9 days in communicating the rejection of the representation on account of which the conclusion is inevitable that the continued detention of the detenu cannot be sustained in law.

4. Now, admittedly, the detenu had made a representation on 23-10-1993 to the Central Government which was submitted to and received by the 2nd respondent, the Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, on the same day. The said representation was, once again admittedly, received by the Central Government on 27-10-1993. The Central Government sent a wireless message to the State Government on 27-10-1993 seeking certain "vital" information but did not state as to what the said "vital" information was. Since the Central Government did not receive the required information, a reminder was issued on 5-11-1993. The Central Government received the required information on 13-11-1993 vide a wireless message of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document