DINA VIPUL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner - Dina Shah is the wife of the detenu - Vipul Vinod Shah. The Petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 31st January 2005 passed by the Principal Secretary, (Appeals & Security) Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, invoking the powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 read with Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974 and Government Order, Home Department No.SB.III/ISA-3974(V) dated 18th December 1974. The Petitioner has approached to this Court challenging the said order of detention on several grounds. But the petition can be disposed off only on one ground, as raised by the Petitioner as Ground No.(XV) in the Grounds of Challenge in Petition. The said ground raised in the Petition reads as follows:

(2.) THE reply affidavit of the detaining authority -Neela Satyanarayana, Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 has been filed in this court on 21st June 2005. In paragraph 20 of the said affidavit, the ground No.XV of the Grounds of Challenge in the Petition has been answered as follows:

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Borulkar appearing for the respondent - Detaining Authority submitted that after receipt of the first representation on 12.2.2005, the detaining authority has received a second representation on 25.2.2005 and the said representation was also processed. He submitted that therefore the decision in respect of the first representation could not be taken till 15.3.2005. He relied upon 1991 CRI.L.J. 790 in the matter of K.M. Abdulla and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and submitted that the words "as soon as may be" occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with. He also invited our attention to paragraph 16 and pointed out that the time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at which the representation is made. Thus, he tried to persuade us that the representation has been properly rejected on 15.3.2005 and, therefore there is no delay, latches or lack of diligence on the part of the detaining authority in disposing off the representation made by the detenu.