Detention Order Invalidated Due to Unexplained Delays

MOHAMED SHAHANAWAZ Versus DN. CAPOOR

MOHAMED SHAHANAWAZ Versus DN. CAPOOR - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 298 (Bom.) Issues:
1. Delay in passing the order of detention.
2. Delay in serving the order on the detenu.
3. Failure to provide a relevant document to the detaining authority.
4. Late consideration and communication of the representation made to the Central Government.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of delay in passing the order of detention and in serving the order on the detenu. The court found the delays to be unexplained and unreasonable. The investigation started promptly after the incident on 29th October 1986, but the detention order was passed on 22nd April 1987, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Screening Committee's approval on 16th February 1987 and the subsequent passing of the detention order on 22nd April 1987 were deemed unjustifiable. The court concluded that the unexplained delay rendered the impugned order invalid and fatal. The authorities failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delays, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

2. Another issue addressed in the judgment was the delay in serving the order on the detenu. The court noted that the order, passed on 22nd April 1987, was served on the detenu on 7th August 1987. The detaining authority claimed the detenu was unavailable, but it was revealed that the detenu had attended adjudication proceedings initiated by the Customs Authority. The court found the delay in serving the order unexplained and emphasized the importance of timely communication of such orders. The court dismissed the argument that the adjudication proceeding was independent, highlighting the relevance of the proceeding and the department's involvement in the detention proposal.

3. The judgment also discussed the failure to provide a relevant document to the detaining authority. A Panchnama conducted at the detenu's residence on 28th November 1986, where no incriminating article was found, was not presented to the detaining authority. This document was considered vital as it could have impacted the case significantly. The court emphasized that the document should have been placed before the detaining authority, as its absence could have adverse implications for the department. The failure to provide this crucial document was viewed unfavorably by the court.

4. Lastly, the judgment addressed the late consideration and communication of the representation made to the Central Government. The representation submitted on 1st September 1987 was rejected, and the communication of this rejection was delayed until 13th October 1987. The court noted the absence of any explanation for the delays in decision-making and communication by the Central Government. Both delays were deemed unfavorable to the Department, leading to the success of the petition on all grounds. The court quashed the impugned order of detention and directed the detenu's immediate release.