TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made a representation to the Advisory Board on February 9, 1987 and it was considered and rejected on February 19, 1987. The State Government confirmed the order of detention on March 13, 1987 for a period of one year w.e.f January 7, 1987. When the orders of detention were challenged, primarily on the ground that the exceptional circumstances and the reasons recorded by the District Magistrate were not communicated to the detenu, the order of detention was held violative of Article 22(5) and the High Court by the impugned order dated June 9, 1987 enlarged the respondents from detention. It is not necessary to go into the other grounds since the reference is on the correctness of the view taken by a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Batti's case. It is contended by Shri K.S. Bhatti, Jain Advocate on behalf of the appellant, that after thorough preparation and analysis of facts, the view taken by the High Court and this court in Batti's case is no correct in law. The objects and reasons of the Act disclose the gravity under which detention could resorted to. Section 3 and Section 8 of the Act are to be read together. The detaining authority, if satisfied with respect to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fective way. The anti-social and anti- national elements including secessionists, communal and pro- caste elements and also other elements who adversely influence and affect the services essential to the community, pose a grave challenge to the lawful authority and sometimes even hold the society to ransom. Therefore, in view of the complexity and nature of the problems, it was felt that the defence, security, public order and maintenance of essential supplies or services to the community require to be maintained, with a view to streamline the administration in a determined way and to provide the teeth to effectively handle the nagging aforesaid situation and to deal with such situations, the Act was enacted. Section 3 is pivotal provision under which the authority has been given to the State to exercise such a power. If the Central or State Government is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers or the security of India, or if it is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der to the appropriate Government. Section 8(1) circumscribe the range and amplitude of the phase "earliest opportunity to supply the grounds of detention" and sweep of the phrase "as soon as possible", i.e., ordinarily within five days an in exceptional circumstances within 10 days. It would thus be seen that the detenu is entitled to be supplied with the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and shall, with a view to afford him an earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government, the grounds of detention be supplied ordinarily within that prescribed period. The period during which the grounds of detention are to be supplied has also been indicated. The grounds shall be communicated, as soon as may be, i.e., ordinarily not later than five days, In order words, the five days limit has been prescribed by the statute to supply the grounds of detention to the detenu. If due to administrative exigencies of exceptional circumstances, the detaining authority could not communicate the grounds, it should record reasons for non-supply of the grounds within five days as envisaged in the first part. As to what ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dispatch when there is no avoidable delay. What is avoidable delay is always a question of fact. The question is : whether the non-supply of the exceptional circumstances and the reasons recorded for non- supply of the grounds of detention before the expiry of five days but within the outer limit of ten days, long with the grounds of detention, vitiates the order of detention? The Division Bench has taken the view that detenu has a valuable right of representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government or to the Advisor Board. Unless the exceptional circumstances and the reasons for non-supply of the grounds of detention and the documents in support thereof or communicated to the detenu, by necessary implication, the valuable right of representation at the earliest opportunity, as envisaged under Article 22 (5), is breached. Thereby, the detenu becomes entitled to be released from detention. It could be seen that what is material and mandatory is the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu together with documents in support of subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority. When the representation has been made by the detenu to t....