S. Kumari vs The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, District Tiruvannamalai, State

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Sivasankaran who had been detained as a ""Black Marketer"" as contemplated

under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner sent a representation on behalf of the detenu, dated

30.8.2001 to the Central Government. The same was rejected on 26.9.2001. Hence there is an unexplained delay in the disposal of the

representation of the petitioner, by the Central Government and as such the impugned order of detention is vitiated.

On behalf of the third respondent one S.L. Meena, Under Secretary in the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi, had filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the representation sent by the petitioner on behalf of

the detenu was received by the Central Government on 3.9.2001. Since the representation is in Tamil language, the State Government was

requested to furnish the English translated version and the copy of the representation was forwarded to the State Government on the same day by

telegram. Since there was no reply from the State Government, reminders were sent to the State Government on 10.9.2001 and 17.9.2001.

Thereafter, the English translated version was received by the Central Government only on 25.9.2001. Thereafter, the Central Government

considered the representation and rejected the same on 26.9.2001. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that there

was no delay on the part of the third respondent. The third respondent had acted swiftly by forwarding the copy of the representation on the very

same day after receipt of the same. The delay is only due to the State Government. Hence the order of detention cannot be vitiated on the ground

of delay.

We carefully considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent. When the representation sent to the Central

Government has to be considered and disposed of by them as early as possible, it is for them to take necessary steps for early disposal. When the

State Government has to conjointly act with the Central Government for the early disposal of the representation, the delay caused by the second

respondent has to be attributed to the delay in the disposal of the representation in joint. It may not be open to the third respondent to contend that

the delay caused by the second respondent will not give any benefit to the detenu. The delay on the part of any authority who is responsible to

consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible, has to be given benefit to the detenu. On this ground, the delay caused in the

disposal of the representation that too the unexplained and inordinate delay, since the second respondent has not come forward to file a counter-

affidavit explaining the delay, the detenu is entitled for the benefit.

Accordingly, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained and hence the same is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The

detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.