Undue delay in the disposal of a representation made by a detenu under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, vitiates the detention order.

The writ petitioner is the wife of one Laiphrakpam Ibotombi Singh who was detained under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act') on 19.6.1990 under orders of the Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. He is still under detention. By this writ petition the validity of the aforesaid detention order is challenged.

2. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the detention order has been challenged on various grounds, the main thrust of the challenge is on the ground of unreasonable long delay in disposal of the representation filed by the detenu. The time taken in disposal of the representation, according to the learned counsel, is 71 days. It is submitted that such a long delay is most unreasonable and cannot be justified on any count. The continued detention under the circumstances it is contended, is illegal.

3. Mr. L. Shyarakishore Singh, learned counsel for the Government, submits that the time taken in the disposal of the representation is not 71 days, but 59 days. He submits that though the representation was dared 12.9.1990, it was received by the Superintendent of the Jail only on 24.9.1990. This period of 59 days, according to the counsel, is not such unreasonable delay which might vitiate the detention.

4. Before we consider the rival submissions, the relevant facts in regard to the representation of the detenu may be briefly stated. The detenu made a representation to the Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. The said representation was sent through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imaphal. The representation is dated 12.9.1990. The Superintendent of Jail forwarded the same to the Secretary (Home) on 24.9.1990. The State Government forwarded a copy of the representation to the Central Gover­nment on 30.10.1990. The representation was rejected by the State Government on 21.II. 1990. All those facts are admitted. The only dispute is in regard to the submission of the representation to the Superintendent of Jail. For this purpose we have seen the original representation. There is no endorsement of the Superintendent, Central Jail on the body of the representation in regard to its date of receipt. What is visible from the representation is that it was forwarded by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail on 24.9.1990.

5. We do not propose to enter into the controversy regarding the date of receipt of the representation by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail because even on the facts admitted by the Government, the time taken for disposal of the representation in this case is 59 days. The learned Gover­nment Advocate submits that there is no hard and fast rule in regard to time within which the representation should be disposed. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. His farther submission is that the disposal of the representation was delayed because the file had to go from Secretary to Secretary which naturally took some time.

6. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also considered the explanation given by the learned Government Advocate for the delay. There is no dispute about the fact that there is no limit fixed for disposal of representation. But equally undisputed is the well-settled law on the subject that the representation of a detenu should be considered and disposed with utmost expedition. There should be no avoidable delay. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 where it was observed :

"... We may make it clear, as we have done on numerous earlier occa­sions, that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without b