Court dismisses delay grounds, orders release due to lack of documents and CCTV access.

The court dismissed the grounds of delay in execution and consideration of representations but found the non-supply of relevant documents and failure to provide facilities for viewing CCTV footage to be significant issues. The court declared the continued detention of the detenu illegal and ordered his immediate release, if not required in any other case. The judgment emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions in cases of preventive detention.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in execution of the detention order.
2. Delay in consideration of the representations.
3. Non-supply of relevant documents and materials.
4. Failure to provide facilities for viewing CCTV footage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the delay in executing the detention order against her husband, who was detained under the COFEPOSA Act. The order was passed on 28.05.2015 but was executed only on 24.01.2019. The petitioner argued that the delay of about four years vitiated the detention as there was no live link between the alleged actions and the need for preventive detention. The court, however, found that the authorities had taken all possible steps to serve the order, including affixture at the detenu's residence, Gazette notification, and publication in vernacular newspapers. The court held that the detenu was likely aware of the order and had been absconding, thus justifying the delay. The court noted that the smuggling activities continued unabated, and the detenu's involvement in organized smuggling four years back could not be dismissed merely due to the passage of time.

2. Delay in Consideration of the Representations:
The petitioner claimed there was an inordinate delay in considering the representations dated 11.02.2019 and 12.02.2019, which were disposed of only on 18.04.2019. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India, which stated that the government could await the Advisory Board's report before considering the representation. The court found that the representations were forwarded to the Advisory Board, which affirmed the detention order on 28.03.2019. The Central Government issued its decision on 16.04.2019, and the representations were subsequently rejected. The court concluded that there was no undue delay in the consideration of the representations.

3. Non-Supply of Relevant Documents and Materials:
The detenu requested certain documents and materials, including a decision in favor of co-noticees and details of proceedings against them, which were not supplied. The court emphasized the importance of providing all pertinent and proximate facts to the detenu to make an effective representation. The court noted that the non-supply of the decision in favor of co-noticees (Ext.P11) caused prejudice to the detenu. The court held that the authorities failed to ensure that the detenu had access to all relevant documents, which vitiated the detention process.

4. Failure to Provide Facilities for Viewing CCTV Footage:
The petitioner argued that the detenu was not provided with adequate facilities to view the CCTV footage, which was a crucial link in the chain of evidence. The court observed that the authorities had directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to provide facilities for viewing the footage, but there was no evidence that the detenu was given a genuine opportunity to view it. The court found that the failure to provide such facilities, despite a prior court decision on a similar issue, amounted to a violation of the detenu's rights. The court held that the authorities' casual approach in this regard led to the vitiation of the detention order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the grounds of delay in execution and consideration of representations but found the non-supply of relevant documents and failure to provide facilities for viewing CCTV footage to be significant issues. The court declared the continued detention of the detenu illegal and ordered his immediate release, if not required in any other case. The judgment emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions in cases of preventive detention.

---