H. K. Sema, J - The detenu Md. Tayeb Ali, resident of Yairipok Ningthounai Village, PS Lamlai, District Imphal, Manipur was detained on 19.10.91 under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Tarffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. This habeas corpus petition is filed by the spouse of the detenu.

2. The detenu was arrested on 19.10.91 by the police personnel and when the detenu was lodged in Manipur Central Jail, he was served with a copy of the detention order dated 17.10. 91 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter on 20.10.91 the detenu was served with a copy of the grounds of detention order dated 17.10.91 passed by the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detenu was informed that he has a right to make representation to the Central/State Government through the Jail Superintendent against the order of detention and that he shall be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation if he wish to do so. The detenu thereafter submitted a representation dated 26.10.91 (Annexure 5). This representation of detenu as appeared from the record was received by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail on 28.10.91. Curiously enough the said representation of the detenu was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur only on 7.11.91 by the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail after a delay of 12 days. The detention order of the detenu was confirmed on 10.12.91 after submission of report by the Advisory Board. The case of the petitioner is that the representation of the detenu was never considered properly and that the delay on the part of the Government of Manipur to consider the representation submitted by the detenu vitiates the detention order.

3. We have heard Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Irabot Singh, Additional Govt. Advocate, Manipur.

4 The only point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay of about 31 days to consider the representation made by the detenu and that the said representation was considered by the respondents in casual and cavalier manner.

5. By now the law is well settled by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in a number of judicial pronouncements that where life and liberty of an individual is curtailed under a law of preventive detention without trial the representation, if any, made by him must be attended to, dealt with, and consider with utmost care and dispose of expsditiously so that the safeguards provided in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution are not rendered meaningless. In Mrs. Hina Khan vs. Superintendent, Gauhati District Jail, Gauhati & others, 1989 (2) GLR 253 [1991(2) GLJ 371] following the principle in SK. Rashid vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 124 in which there was delay of 26 days in considering the representation. The Apex Court had held the delay vitiated the detention order. In Vinay Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & others, (1986) Supp SCC 528, there was a delay of 45 days and the Apex Court took the same view. In Saleh Mahammad vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 428 (AIR 1981 SC 111) in which there was a delay of 22 days in considering the representation of the detenu meet similar fate. Following the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court quashed the detention order on the ground that there was a delay of 34 days in disposing of the representation by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 2377 where the Apex Court had held that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner vitiates the detention order. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in Harish Pahwa vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1126 where it has been pointed out that the Court does not look with the equanimity upon the delays in considering the represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document