TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (11) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The said order of detention was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Habeas Corpus Petition No. 785 of 1994. That petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 18-8-1994. The present appeal is filed by special leave against the said order. 3. The detenu was supplied grounds of detention of even date when he was detained pursuant to the impugned detention order. The appellant had raised various contentions challenging the order of detention. The grounds raised by her in support of the petition did not find favour with the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed. In appeal amongst others one contention was placed in the fore-front in support of the appeal. The said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tody and was placed under preventive detention pursuant to the order dated 17th February, 1993. In the grounds of detention furnished to him it was clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 that the detenu had a right to make a representation to the State Government and also to the Government of India if he so desired in writing against the order under which he was kept under detention. It was further stated that if the detenu wished to make such a representation he should address it to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Section, New Delhi, as the case may be, and forward it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to the Central Government by addressing it to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Sec., New Delhi. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras to send one copy of the representation out of nine copies supplied to him to the said addressee. But surprisingly nothing was done in this connection by the jailor. He almost sat tight over the representation. It transpires that only the Collector of Customs having come to know about this representation, sent the same to the appropriate authority in the Central Government as late as on the 22nd July, 1994. Therefore, there was a delay of almost 84 days in sending the representation to the appropriate authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism. Therefore, the detention was not vitiated due to delay. 6. In the facts of the present case it is not the delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation on 27th July, 1994 which reached its end on 22nd July, 1994 that is on the anvil. The question is whether the delay on the part of the jailor in despatching the representation received by him on 4th May, 1994 to the Central Government has violated the constitutional right under Articles 22(5) or not. So far as that question is concerned, it has to be noted that the jailor on his part never despatched the representation to the Central Government. If he had despatched the same as expeditiously as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... infracted the constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5). A futile attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to distinguish the judgment on the ground that in Jaiprakash's case (supra) the detention was under the National Security Act and that representation to the Central Government was never considered while in the present case the detention is under COFEPOSA and the representation was ultimately decided upon by the Central Government. These facts would make no difference to the applicability of the ratio of Jaiprakash's case. Even under COFEPOSA, the Central Government having statutory power to revoke the detention under Section 11 cannot be said to be an authority which was not at all concerned with such a ....