The preventive detention order was upheld, affirming that procedural delays in representation handling did not violate constitutional mandates under Article 22(5).

1. This Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu challenging the order dated 16th August 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under S.3 sub-section (2) of the National Security Act , 1980. The order came to be passed against the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu pari passu.

2. Considering the two points raised by the learned Advocate for the detenu, it is not necessary to state in detail the grounds on which the detenu came to be detained. However, in nutshell, they are as follows : -

3. The ground 2 shows that the detenu is a gang leader and a weapon wielding desperado, committed heinous crimes by using weapons like swords, revolver and choppers. He has created a reign of terror in the minds of the public in the localities of Ravalpada, S.N. Dube Marg, Maratha Colony and adjoining areas of Bombay. He has a criminal record which shows he is a person of violent character and indulging in terrorist activities and in spite of various actions taken against him under the ordinary law of the land, he could not be prevented from committing such terrorising and criminal activities. It has also been stated that the detenu and his associates always move about armed with deadly weapons and do not hesitate to use the same while committing various offences like robberies, assault, extortion and criminal intimidation. Under clause 3(a) to (e), five instances of such criminal activities committed by the detenu are narrated. Clause 3 (f) mentions that confidential enquiries about the detenu disclosed that the fearstruck persons, who were victims of atrocities committed by the detenu, were afraid to lodge their complaints against him due to fear of ruthless retaliation at his hands. It has been mentioned that as the police gave assurance that their names and identity particulars shall not be disclosed and they shall not be called to give evidence against the detenu in Court, four witnesses expressed their willingness to make statements depicting the atrocities committed by the detenu. Clause 3 (f) (i) to (iv) a gist of in camera statements of the four persons is given.

4. The learned Advocate for the detenu raised various points in the petition. However, he has only urged two points.''

5. The first point raised is that there was delay at different stages, such as transmitting etc. the representation made by the detenu leading to the violation of constitutional mandate enshrined in clause 5 of Art.22 of the Constitution of India and hence the order of detention is invalid and vitiated. Before dealing with the factual aspect, we shall first state the law on this point. In view of the various judgements delivered by the Apex Court it is well settled and the same can be summarised as follows :

6. The representation should be transmitted, considered and disposed of with due or reasonable promptitude and diligence. There should be no amount of supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. The delay should be explained and should not be unreasonable. There can be no hard and fast or absolute rule in that respect, and each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances.

7. The learned Advocate for the detenu cited four Judgements in support of his contention. They are : -
(i)1990 CriLJ 1420 : AIR 1990 SC 1361 (SC) ( Gazi Khan alias Choti