Unreasonable delay in considering a representation sent to the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, renders the detention order illegal.

1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order in respect of one Sahir Hussain, the husband of the petitioner detaining the said Sahir Hussain under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980. The order is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

2. Since the learned counsel restricts his submission only to the delayed consideration of the representation sent to the Central Government, we need not advert to the facts involved and the reasons behind the detention order.

3. Learned counsel points out that after the detention order was passed and was served on the petitioner on 24. 1998, two representations were sent, one dated 5. 1998 and another dated 6. 1998. It seems, learned counsel submits that these representations were rejected and an intimation to that affect was given vide order dated 10. 1998. Learned counsel points out that this rejection order dated 10. 1998 refers to both the representations dated 5. 1998 and 6. 1998. By way of the explanation, learned counsel for the Central Government points out that the representations reached the Central Government only on 30.8.1998. We may say here that in paragraph 6 of the counter, while there is reference to the representation dated 6. 1998, there appears to be no reference to the representation dated 5. 1998, but we would take it that both the representations reached the Central Government on 30.6.1998. It is then pointed out that since some vital information was required, the Central Government sent wireless message on the same to the State Government, and since it did not receive the said information, sent the reminders also on 17. 1998, 8. 1998 and 9. 1998. However, it seems that the required information reached the Central Government on 9. 1998. The counter goes on to suggest that thereafter the matter was put before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 9. 1998, who considered the same on the same date and put up before the Honourable Home Minister, Government of India on the same day. It seems that thereafter, the matter remained pending before the Honourable Home Minister, Government of India till 29. 1998 and it is suggested that it is on 29. 1998 that the representation came to be rejected.

4. It is then pointed out in paragraph 8 that the intimation to that effect was given by a crash wireless message dated 30.9.1998 through the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. It is then reiterated that a letter dated 10. 1998 intimating the rejection was thereafter sent. Thus, the counter gives the only explanation that the representation, after it was received, was worked on by the Central Government without any unreasonable delay and because it received the comments from the State Government late, that representations could not be considered earlier and further after the matters were put before the Honourable Home Minister on 9. 1998, the matter remained pending before the Honourable Home Minister for 18 days. From this counter, one thing is clear that there is absolutely no explanation as to why so much time was taken in receiving the comments from the State Government. After having sent the wireless message on 30.6.1998, the comments were not received and early action was solicited on the part of the State Government. Central Government woke up for the first time in this behalf on 17. 1998, thereafter on 8. 1998 and thereafter on 9. 1998 in sending reminders. These materials, we are afraid, could have been sought earlier. Therefore, there is no explanation of this period. Even after receiving the comments from the State Government on 9. 1998, once the matters were put before the Honourable Home Minister on 9. 1998, there is absolutely no explanation as to what happened to the said representation upto 29. 1998. Beyond a bold explanation that the matter remained before the Honourable Home Minister, there is no explanation as to why the matter should hav