B. N. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
(2.) THE petitioner is detained in District Jail Aligarh under the order of the District Magistrate Aligarh dated 30-11-1983 passed under Sec. 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodites essential to the community. THE petitioner was arrested on 2-1-1984 and the aforesaid order was served on him on that day along with the grounds of detention. THE petitioner made an application for the supply of certain documents on 19-1-1984, which was rejected by the District Magistrate on the same day. THE petitioner submitted his representation to the Superintendent, District Jail, Aligarh on 22- 1-1984. It was received by the District Magistrate, Aligarh on 23-1-1984 and was sent by him to the State Government on 24-1-1984. It was rejected by the State Government on 4-2-1984. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the representation of the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board by the State Government within three weeks from the date of his detention as required by Sec. 10 of the Act. From an examination of the record of the District Magistrate it appeared that the representation of the petitioner was received by the Superintendent District Jail, Aligarh on the evening of 22-1-1984, which was a Sunday. It was sent by him to the District Magistrate on the next day (23-1-1984). According to the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate the representation of the petitioner could not be sent from Aligarh on 23-1-1984 so as to be placed before the Advisory Board by 5 P. M. on that day (23-1-1984). It was, therefore, sent from Aligarh to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 24-1-1984 along with his comments. It thus appears that the representation of the petitioner was not received by the District Magistrate from the Superintendent District Jail, Aligarh on 23-1-1984 in time so that it could be sent to Lucknow on that day by the trains which connect Aligarh with Lucknow so as to reach the Advisory Board by 5 P. M. on that day. The explanation furnished by the District Magistrate, Aligarh for not sending it on 23- 1-1984 is thus satisfactory. The representation of the petitioner was admittedly submitted by him 20 days after his arrest on 22-1-1984, In these circumstances, it was not possible for the District Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act. The detention of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be held to be illegal for non-compliance with the provision of Sec. 10 of the Act. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of by the State Government expeditiously as required by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Superintendent, District Jail, Aligarh on 22-1-1984 in the evening. It was sent by the Superintendent, District Jail, Aligarh to the District Magistrate, Aligarh on 23-1-1984 and the District Magistrate Aligarh sent it to the State Government on 24-1-1984. According to the counter-affidavit filed by Syed Israr Rizvi, Assistant in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Sec. 10, U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow the representation of the petitioner was received at Lucknow on 24-1-1984 and on account of the intervening holiday (26-1-1984) it was dealt with in the Secretariat on 28-1-1984. It was placed before the Under Secretary on 31-1-1984. On 1-2.1984 it was examined by the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department and was rejected by the State Government on 4-2-1984. It is, therefore, evident that the representation of the petitioner was rejected within 12 days of its submission by him. It cannot, therefore, be held that the representation of the petitioner was disposed of after an inordinate delay and the State Government acted in a lethargic manner or in a cavalier fashion. It may be mentioned that it has been held in S. K. Ibrahim v. State of west Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 736 that the disposal of the representation of the detenu within 10 days does not amount to its being disposed of after an inordinate delay. In Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1983 SC 181 the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the State Government within 16 days of its submission and within 6 days of its receipt. It was held that the delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner was not unreasonable. It is well-settled that no absolute test can be laid down to determine whether there has been a delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu. It is a question of fact to be determined in each case. In the present case, it cannot be held that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of by the State Government expeditiously as required by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority did not supply the documents, which were demanded by the petitioner in his application dated 19-1-1984, which were necessary for making his representation. IT appears that all the documents referred to in the grounds of detention and demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him except the agreement entered into by him in 1980-81 and copies of his three licences. In our opinion, the detaining authority is only required to supply those documents, which were before it when it passed the order of detention as the order of detention is based only on those documents. The detainig authority , in our view is not required to supply documents, which were not before it when it passed the order of detention, although they may have been referred to in some of the documents, which were before it when it passed the detention order. IT is well settled that the detenu is entitled to be furnished with not only the grounds of detention but also the documents and material on which those grounds are based. IT is obvious that the grounds of detention are based only on the material that is before the detaining authority. Although in that material there may be a reference to some other documents, but the detenu is not entitled to get a copy of those documents as they were not before the detaining authority when it passed the order of detention. In the present case, the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate shows that all the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. We have also examined the record of the District Magistrate relating to the case of the petitioner and found that copies of all the documents that were before the District Magistrate when he passed the order of detention against the petitioner were supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The record also showed that a copy of the agreement entered into by the petitioner in 1980-81 and copies of the three licences of the petitioner were not before the District Magistrate when he passed the detention order against the petitioner. He was, therefore, not required to supply these documents to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. In our opinion, the non-supply of these documents has not affected his right under Article 22 (5) or the Constitution of India to make an effective representation against the grounds of his detention. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground of the detetion of the petitioner was stale. It was stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was the proprietor of Govind Dal Mill at Aligarh. In 1980-81 the petitioner was supplied 3477.82 quintals of Dhan common. 2844.24 quintals Dhan fine and 44.10 quintals of Dhan super fine (total quantity of 6366 21 quintals) for custom hulling under an agreement under which the rice was required to be supplied after hulling of the Dhan to the State Government by 30-6-1981 The petitioner, however, did not comply, with the aforesaid agreement and did not supply 220 quintals of rice from Dhan common and 214 quintals, 65 Kilograms and 300 grams of rice from Dhan fine to the State Government by 5-8-1983. The petitioner also did not return 5451 bags to the State Government as required under the agreement by 5-9-1983. All this was also not ia stock on 5 9-1983. The petitioner thus sold the aforesaid quantity of rice in black market and violated clause 9 of the U. P. Rice and .Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Order), which was punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A report under that section was lodged against the petitioner by Suresh Chand Garg Marketing Inspector on 5-9-1983 a? P.S. Banna Devi at Aligarh.;