BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RAIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

    BiRENDRA KUMAR RA! ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RA!                                  A
                          v.
               UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                           SEPTEMBER 3, 1992

             [KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.]                                B

      Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-
stnaces Ac4 1988:

         Section 3(1)-l'reventive detention-Detenu-<:omplaint filed under C
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Custody W111Tant is-
sued-Before service of wWTant detenu an:ested under Anns Act and Motor
Vehicles Act-Voluminous evidence showj11g detenu's engagement in illicit
ITllffic in Narcotic Drugs-Detention order [JllSSed while detenu was in jail for
offences under Anns Act and Motor Vehicles Act-Detaining Authority men-
tioning 'likelihood' of prosecution under NDPS Act in ground of deten- D
tio~Allegation of non-application of mind-Use of word 'likely' does not
necessarily indicate non-application of mind--Order held not vitiated.

       Detention Order-Compelling necessity for-Subjective satisfaction-If
sufficient mateiral is placed before detainirig authority Court is not entitled to
interfere with detention order.                                                    E
      Detention Order-Representation against-Delay in consideration and
disposal-Question of delay depends on facts of each case-lJelay of 33 days
explained properly-Detention order held not vitiated.

       Declaration under Section 10( l}-Representation against-Delay in           F
consideration and disposaf-f'eriod taken by postal authorities cannot be
attributed as delay of authorities.

      Preventive detention-Detention cases should be dealt with more care
and circumspection-Need for detention cases to be dealt with by fully trained G
and experienced persons emphasised.

      A complaint under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 was filed against the petitioner and others on 7.11.1990 in the
Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi and a custody warrant was also issued.
However, before the warrant of arrest could be served the petitioner was H
                                   391
    392

A
                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

    arrested in connection with offences under section 25 of the Arms Act and
                                                                                  ,.
    section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and be was detained in District Jail,
    Gbazlpur. Thus the petitioner having already been arrested in the cases
    under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act the warrant of arrest issued
    by Varanasi Court under the NDPS Act was never executed nor the detenu
B   brought from District Jail Gbazlpur to the concerned Court at Varanasi.
    During the custody of the petitioner in the District Jail Gbazipur a
    detention order under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Trame in
    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was passed against
    the petitoner on 4.12.1990 and the same was served on him along with the
    grounds of detention on 10.12.1990. On 22.12.1990 the petitioner made a
C   representation against the detention order which was rejected by the
    Government on 25.1.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Habeas Cor·
    pus petition In the Allahabad High Court challenging the detention which
    was dismissed by a Full Bench of the High Court. The petitioner filed a ·
    Speacial Leave Petition in this Court challenging the order of the High
D   Court. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner also filed IUl
    application stating additional grounds for challenging the declaration
    issued under section 10(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcodc.
    Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

          On behalf of the petitioner It was contended that the detention order
E was invalid because (a) there was non-application of mind by the detain·
    ing authority which was evident from the fact the though the complaint
    under the NDPS Act had already been filed yet the detaining authority In
    its ground of detention was mentioning that 'prosecution proceedings
    under NDPS Act are likely to be initiated against you'; (b) that when the
F   petitioner was already in custody and a case had been initiated against
    him under the NDPS Act and there being no probability of grant of bail,
    there was no ground or justification for the satisfaction of the detaining
    authority to hold that there was compelling necessity for the detention of
    the petitioner; (c) that there was unexplained and Jong delay of 33 days in
    the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner against the
G   detention order; and (d) the Jong delay of one month and 17 days in
    consideration and disposal of the representation made against declara·
    lion under section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act was violative of Article 22(5)
    of the Constitution.

H         Dismissing the petition, this Court,
                        BIRENDRA RA! v. U.0.1.                            393

      HELD: 1. There was voluminous documentary evidence on record A
before the detaining authority for passing the order of detention and it
cannot be said that there was non application of mind in passing the
impugned order of detention. The voluminous record available with the
detaining authority showed that the petitioner was engaged in illicit traffic
in the purchase, sale, possession and abetting. the export of Narcotic B
Drugs in an area which IS" higbly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. (399 E·FJ

      2. When the petitioner was not taken Into custody under the NDPS
Act and continued to remain in jail under the Arms Act and Motor
Vehicles Act till the passing of the detention order there was nothlna
wrong in mentioning In the grounds of order of detention that the prosecu·       C
tion proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 are likely to be Initiated against
the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that the word 'likely' used In the
grounds of detention may not be fully appropriate but this cannot be
meant that the detaining authority was not aware of the case pending
under the NDPS Act. (398 C·D)
                                                                                 D
      3. It is clear from the grounds of detention that the detaining
 authority was aware that a bail application bad been flied by the petitioner
 and the same was to come up for hearing. Therefore, the detaining
, authority was justified In recording the satisfaction of compelling neces-
  sity of issuing the detention order as It could not have been predicated E
  with certainty that the petitioner would not be released on bail. (399-C]

       4. The satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was a com·
 pelllng necessity for detaining the petitioner in order to prevent him from
 indulging in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs was subjective satisfaction of
 the detaining authority and if sufficient material in this regard was placed    F
 before the detaining authority, this Court is not entitled to Interfere with
 such order. (398-H, 399-A)

       5. If the delay In disposal of detenu's representation remains unex-
 plained leading to the conclusion that the conduct of the authorities In G
 tlds regard amounted to Inaction, callousness or slackness then the
 cletenu ts entitled to be released. However, the question of delay depends
 on the facts of each case. The High Court was right in its conclusion that
 In the facts and circumstances of the case no inference of ·slackness,
 callousness, casualness, inaction or leisurely treatment of the petitioner·s
 representation was made out. (399-H, 400-A)                                  H
    394                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         6. The period taken by the postal authorities cannot be attributed to
    any delay or inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities con-
    sidering the representation. The delay in considering and disposing the
    representation against the declaration made under Section 10(1) of the
    PITNDPS Act has been explained in detail in the cnunter affidavit filed
    before this Court aad a perusal of the said explaaation shows that the
B   time taken cannot be considered so as to draw an Inference of inaction or
    callousness ou the part of the authorities. (403 E·G, 404-A]

           7. If the Govermeut takes care that the detention cases arising under
    the preventive detention laws are handled by persons fully trained and
C   having experience In such matters, the rights of the citizens can be
    safeguarded and the precious time of the Court can be saved. The detain-
    ing authorities are required to deal with such cases with more care and
    circumspection. They should not leave such cases to be dealt with by lower
    olfteials and should keep a track of such cases from beginning to the end
D   and also take care that the representations, if any, made by the detenues
    are also dealt with expeditiously without any delay. (404 B-C]

          In matters where the detention orders are passed in relation to such
    persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining
    au~horities should always apply their mind and show their awareness in
E   this regard In the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such
    persons on baU and stating the necessity of keeping such persons in
    detention under the preventive delt'ntion laws. It is hoped that the con·
    cemed authorities shall deal with such matters with special care.
                                                                     (404 D-E]
F        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for Special
    Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1050 of 1992.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1992 of the Allahabad
    High Court in Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1646 of 1991.
G        R.K. Jain, Ms. Abba R. Sharma, Ashish Verma, S.R. Setia and
    Tripurari Rai for the Petitioner.

         K.T.S. Tuls~ Addi. Solicitor General, Ashok Bhan, D.S. Mehra, P.
    Parmeswaran, ~.P. Sarthy, Ajay K. Agrawal and R.B. Misra for the
H   Respondents.
               BIRENDRA RA! v. U.O.l. [KASLIWAL, J.]                      395

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  A

      KASLIWAL, J. This petition for special leave to appeal is directed
against the judgment of the Allahabad Higb Court dated 21.2.1992 dismiss-
ing the habease corpus petition filed by the detenu Birendra Kumar Rai
alias Venrendra Kumar Rai.
                                                                                  B
      The petitioner was arrested on 21.11.1990 by Zamania Police in
connection with Crime No. 402 of 1990 under Section 25 of the Arms Act
and Section '21J7 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner was detained
in District Jail, Ghazipur in connection with the above case. During the
custody of the petitioner in District Jail Ghazipur he was served on              C
10.12.1990 with a detention order passed by the Joint Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New
Delhi, under Section 3 ( 1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'PITNDPS Act, 1988'). The petitioner was given the grounds of deten-          D
tion along with the copies of documents relied on by the detaining authority
along with the detention order.

       It was alleged in the grounds of detention that on a secret information
the Officers of Varanasi and Delhi units of Narcotic Control Bureau inter-
cepted Shanti Swaroop and A.K. Chaudhary alias P .P. Singb on the nigbt of        E
12/13th August, 1990 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (Terminal-
!!), New Delhi when they reported for boarding Fligbt No. K.L. 836 to
Amsterdam. On search of their baggage, P.P. Singb was found to possess 975
grams of Her.oin concealed in the false bottom of his shoulder bag. On the
basis of statements and disclosures made by these persons, the house of the       F
petitioner, his father and brothers were searched and 855.250 grams of
foreign marked 7 gold biscuits and some incriminating documents were
recovered. On search of the petitioner's flat at Varanasi some more docu-
ments were recovered. The father and brothers of the petitioner in their
statements admitted their involvement in the business of Heroin. Karnta Rai
also stated that the petitioner fell into bad company and started preparing       G
Heroin from Opium and the petitioner also joined his brothers in the same
trade and from the money earned from the said business the petitioner had
purchased one flat at Andheri (Bombay). The statements of the members of
the petitioner's family cearly revealed that the petitioner had been engaged in
the clandestine business of preparing and selling Heroin.                         H
    396                  SuPREME COURT REPORTS(l992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         On 7.11.1990 a complaint was filed against the petitioner and others
    under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
    (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act, 1985'). Beore any warrant of
    arrest could be served on the petitoner in respect of the aforesaid case
    lodged under the NDPS Act, 1985, the petitoner was arreested on
B   21.11.1990 in the case registered under the Arms Act and the Motor
    Vehicles Act. He was arested and detained in District Jail Ghazipur. The
    petitoner moved an application for bail on 3.U.1990 before the Session
    Judge in respect of the case under NDPS Act, 1985. The detention order
    under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 was passed by the Joint
    Secretary to the G-Overnment of India on 4.121990 and the aforesaid
C   detention order was sern:d along with the grounds of detention on
    10.12.1990 while the petitioner was in the custody at District Jail Ghazipur.
    The petitoner made a representation to the President of India and Joint
    Secretary to the Government of India on 22.12.1990. The Central Govern-
    ment rejected the representation on 25.1.1991. The petitioner then filed a
D   habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging his deten-
    tion. There was a defference of opinion between the two Learned Judge
    of the High Court in the order pronounced on the habeas corpus petition
    on 23.4.1991. The matter was ultimately heard by the Full Bench of the
    High Court and the Writ Petition was dismissed by unanimous order dated
    21.2.1992. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the High Court has
E   come before this Court by filing special leave petition under Article 136 of
    the Constitution.

           We have heard Mr. R.K. Jain, Learned Senior Counsel for the
    petitioner and Mr. K.T.S. Tuls~ Learned Additional Solicitor General on
F   behalf of the Union of India. Though the detention order was challenged
    on several grounds before the High Court, but the learned Counsel for the
    petitioner challenged the detention of the petitioner before us on the
    following grounds:-                              ·

          {l) That the detaining authority did not apply its mind in passing the
G detention order dated 4.12.1990.

         {2} That there was unexplained long delay in the disposal of the
  representation made by the petitioner. The representation made by the
  petitioner dated 22.12.1990 was disposed of on 18.1.1991 and communi·
H cated to him on 25.1.1991 and this long delay of 33 days remains unex-
                 BIRENDRA RAI v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.]                      397

plained.                                                                          A
     We shall consider the arguments advanced in respect of the above
grounds in seriatim. As regards the first ground, Mr. R.K. Jain, Learned.
Senior Counsel adverted our attention to ground No. 2i of the grounds of
detention order which reads as under:·
                                                                                  B
           "Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotics
           Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are likely to
           be initiated against you, I am satisfied that there is com-
           pelling necessity, in view of the likelihood of your indulging
           in illicit traffic of Narcotics Drugs as is evident from the           C
           trend of your activities, to detain you under the Prevention
           of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-
           stances Act. 1988."

        It was submitted that the above facts mentioned 1n para 21 clearly
  show the unawareness of the correct facts on the part of the detaining D
  authority and which leads to the ncin-application of mind of the "detaining
  authority. It was pointed out that though the complaint under the NDPS
  Act, 1985 had already been filed on 7.11:1990 yet the detaining authority
  under the above para No.21 of the grounds of detention dated 4.12.1990
  was mentioning "that prosecution proceedings under Narcotics Drgus and E
  Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are likely to be initiated against you.' It
  was further submitted that though a warrant of arrest had also been issued
  by the Court at Varanasi where the case under NDPS Act, 1985 had
  already been initiated and a bail application had also been moved still the
  detaining authority was mentioning that the prosecution proceedings under
  NDPS Act, 1985 were likely to be initiated against the petitioner. It was F
  also argued in this regard that when the petitioner was already in custody
  and a case had been initidted against him under the NDPS Act, 1985, there
  was no question of any grant of bail and there was no ground or justifica-
. lion for the satisfaction of the detaining authority and to hold that there
  was any compelling necessity for the detention of the petitioner under the G
  provisions of Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988. It was also argued
  that the grounds of detention did not show that the detaining authority was
  aware that the petitioner was already in jail in District Jail, Gazipur for the
  offences under the Arms Act and the Motor Vehicles Act.

       We find no force in the above contention. The admitted facts of the H
    398                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A case as also recorded by the High Court in the impugned order show that
    on 7th November, 1990 a complaint had been lodged by the Intelligence
    Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi against the petitioner,
    his father and two brothers in the Court of Session Judge, Varanasi and a
    custody warrant was also issued on 22.11.1990. But the petitioner having
B   already been arrested and detained on 21.11.1990 in the cases under the
    Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act and detained in District Jail, Ghazipur,
    the warrant of arrest issued from the Varanasi Court in Crime Case No.195
    of 1990 was never executed nor the detenu had been brought from District
    Jail, Ghazipur to the concerned Court at Varanasi. In these circumstances,
C   when the petitioner was not taken into custody under the Crime Case No.
    195 of 1990 under the NDPS Act, 1985 and continued to remain in District
    Jail, at Ghazipur in Crime Case No.402 of 1990 under the Arms Act and
    Motor Vehicles Act till the passing the detention order on 4.12.1990, there
    was nothing wrong in mentioning in the grpunds of order of detention that
    the prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 are likely to be in-
D   itiated against the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that the word 'likely'
    used in the grounds of detention may not be fully appropriate but this
    cannot be meant that the detaining authority was not aware of the case
    pending under ND PS Act, 1985 at Varanasi. We are satisfied with the
    explanation given by the Learned Additional Solicitor General in this
E   regard that till the warrant of arrest issued by the Varanasi Court was
    executed and the petitioner was brought and produced before the con-
    cerned Court at Varanasi, the detaining authority was justified in consider-
    ing that the prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 were likely to
    be initiated against the petitioner. It may be further noted that in para 19
F   of grounds of detention, it has been clearly mentioned that a bail applica-
    tion on behalf of the petitioner had been filed in the Court of Session
    Judge, Varanasi on 3.12.1990 and in whcih the next date of hearing had
    been fixed for 7.12.1990. Thus, it cannot be said that the detaining authority
    was not aware or had not applied its mind in respect of the fact that a case
    under ND PS Act, 1985 was already pending in the Court at Varanasi when
G   the detaining authority was mentioning the fact that the petitioner had
    moved the bail application on 3.12.1990 and which was fixed for hearing
    on 7.12.1990. So far as the question of the satisfaction of the detaining
    authority is concerned that there was a compelling necessity for detaining
H   the petitioner in order to prevent him from indulging in Illicit Traffic of
               BIRENDRA RAJ v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.]                   399

Narcotic Drugs is concerned, the same depends on the subjective satisfac- A
tion of the detaining authority and if sufficient material in this regard was
placed before the detaining authority, the Court is not entitled to interfere
in such order.

       It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no B
possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and as such there was
no ground or justification for the detaining authority to hold that there was
a ccimpelling necessity for the detention of the pe.titioner. We find no force
in this contention. The detaining authority was aware that a bail application
had already been filed by the petitioner and the same was to come up for
hearing on 7.12.1990 and in these circumstances the detaining authority was C
justified in recording the satisfaction of compelling necessity of issuing the ·
detention order as it could not have been predicted with certainty that the
petitioner would not be released on bail. During the course of the argu-
ments of this case before us, it was pointed out by the Learned Additional
Solicitor General that the bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner D
and this proves the correctness and legitimacy of the satisfaction of the
detaining authority in this regard. There was. voluminous documentary
evidence placed on record ·before the detaining authority for passing the
order of detention and it cannot be said that there was non application of
mind in passing the impugned order of detention. The voluminous record
available with the detaining authority showed that the petitioner was E
engaged in illicit traffic in the purchase, sale, possession and abetting the
export of Narcotic Drugs in the city of Varanasi which is an area highly
vulnerable to such illicit traffic. There was enough material for the satis-
faction of the detaining authority that the petitioner and his family was
engaged· in the clandestine business of preparing and selling Heroin for F
export from India.

      Ground No. 2

      It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitoner had G
submitted the representation on 22.12.1990, but it was disposed of on
25.1.1991 and this shows the callousness and the casual manner in which
the authorities acted in dealing with the liberty of a citizen. There can be
no manner of doubt that if the delay remians unexplained leading to the
conclusion that the conduct of the authorities in thi• regard amounted to
inaction, callousness or slackness then the detenu is entitled to be released. H
    400                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   However, the question of dealy depends on the facts of each case. This
    argument was made before the High Court also, and the same was dealt
    in detail and it was ultimately held that in the fact and circumstances and
    on perusal of the original record they did not find that any inference of
    slackness, callousness, casualness, inaction or leisurely treatment of the
    petitioner's representaiton is made out. The observations of the High Court
B   in this regard are reproduced as under:·

            "For this we examined the file from the original records
            which were placed before us. From the records, we find
            that the petitioner submitted his representation on 22nd
c           December, 1990, which was forwarded to the authority
            concerned on the next date, though it was a Sunday. The
            said representation was received in the Ministry of Finance
            on the 27th December, 1990. Thereafter, the same was sent
            to Pt. NDPS which was received on 31st December, 1990
D           (29th and 30th December, 1990, being Saturday and Sun-
            day respectively). On the same day it was sent to the Duputy
            Director, Narcotic Bureau, Varanasi, and was received in
            the office at Varanasi on 10th January, 19~1. On the very
            next day i.e. 11th January, 1991 the documents as desired
            was posted at Delhi and was received back in Delhi on the
E           14th January, 1991. On 17th January the Under Secretary
            examined and placed it before the Detaining Authority.
            The detaining authority again placed the same before the
            Secretary, Government of India and on 18th January, 1991,
            the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the
F           Fmance Minister. There are two dates on which arguments
            was raised regarding delay in disposal even after these
            dates were disclosed from the record The first set of days
            is between 23rd December to 27th December, 1990, when
            the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghazipur forwarded the
            representation and was received in the Ministry of
G           Fainance, and other from 1st January, 1991 when it was
            sent by Pt. NDPS, Delhi to 10th January, 1991, on which
            date it was received in the office of Dy. Director, Narcotic
            Bureau, Varanasi. Regarding the first set of days it is
            revealed from the record that the said representation was
H           sent through the Messenger Sri Indra Prakash Lal Srivas-
                  BIRENDRA RAJ v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.]                    401

           tava of Ghazipur District Jai~ who received the same on               A
           23rd December, 1990. He carried two letters with him. One
           was to be delivered at Lucknow and the other (petitioner's
           representation with comment) at Delhi. He proceeded !o
           Gorakhpur his home on 24th December, 1990, on his own
l          by a private bus. 25th December was a holiday on account
           of X-Mas and on 26th December he delivered the letter at
                                                                                 B
           Lucknow, on the way meant for LG. Prison, Lucknow and
           then reached Delhi and delivered the letter with the rep-
           resentation in the office of the Joint Secretary, Finance,
           Government of India on 27th December, 1990. Regarding
           the second set of dates, according to the respondents it was          C
           despatched on 1st January, 1991 by post from Delhi and
           was only received in Varanasi on 10th January, 1991. From
           a perusal of the letter dated 11th January, 1991, sent back
           along with the comment annexed a reference was made
           that in future, representation be sent by speed post to avoid         D
           delay. The delay could only be on account of it being sent
           by ordinary post and not speed post. Further, according to
           learned counsel for the respondent the delay of delivery by
           ordinary post would only be on account of riots during that
           period in Varanasi.
                                                                                 E
            However on the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on
                     1

            perusal of the origiual record we do not find that any
            inference of slackness callousness, casualness, inaction or
            leisurely treatment of the petitioner's representation is
            made out. On the facts of this case we come to the con-
                                                                                 F
            clusion that it cannot be held that there was any delay in
            disposal of the representation of the petitioner."

         We are fully in agreement with the above observations of the High
    Court and find no valid reason to take a different view.
                                                                                 G
          During the pendency of this special leave petition the petitioner filed
    an application stating additional grounds for challenging the declaration
    issed under Section 10 (1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988. In this regard, it has
    been submitted that the declaration under Section 10 (1) was issued on
    January 8, 1991. The petitioner sent a representation dated 31.3.1992 H
    402                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A against the declaration. The said representation was submitted through the
    Jail Superintendent, Agra on 10.4.1992 to be forwarded to the Secretary to
    the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The said representation has
    been rejected by the Central Government on 27.5.1992 after a long delay
    of one month and 17 days. This long delay in consideration and disposal
    of the representation is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. In
B   reply to the above additional ground a counter affidavit has been filed on
    behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Under
    Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the period from
    10.4.1992 to 27.5.1992 is explained in the following manner:-

c           "2. The detenu's representation dated 10.4.1992 against the
            10(1) declaration as forwarded by Central Jail, Agra was
            received in the main registry of the Department on
            20.4.1992. Since the receipt section of the Department is
            heavily loaded, it appears that the reoeipt was wrongly
            mar\<ed to some other branch, who returned it to the main
D
            registry as is indicated on the representation and thereafter
            it was sent to this section. In between, 25.4.1992 and
            26.4.1992 were holidays and the representation was
            received by the PITNDPS CELL on 27.4.1992.

E           3. On 27.4.1992, a letter was issued by registered post to
            the Sponsoring Authority i.e. Narcotics Control Bureau,
            Varanasi for their comments. Narcotics Control Bureau,
            Varanasi, vide their letter dated 30.4.1992 give their com-
            ments, which was received in the PITNDPS CELL on
F           05.5.1992. Within the constraints of office work-load in
            other official matters, the comments offered by the Nar-
            cotics Control Bureau, Varanasi, were examined vis-a-vis
            the points made in the petition on the following three
            working days i.e. 6,7 and 8.5.1992. Since 9 and 10.5.1992
            were holidays, another letter was issued on 11.5.1992 to
G           Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi asking for further
            detailed co:uments so that the representation could be
            considered thoroughly and approriately.

            4. The detailed comments were forwarded by Narcotics
H           Control Bureau, Varanasi vide their letter dated 15.5.1992
              BIRENDRA RAJ v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.]                     403

        and the same were received in the PIT ND PS CELL on                   A
        20.5.1992. Since there were two sets of comments with
        reference to the petition these were thoroughly examined
        on 21st and 22nd May, 1992. 23rd and 24th May, 1992 being
        holidays, these were submitted with a detailed note on
        25.5.1992. These were further scrutinized by the Joint
        Secretary on 25.5.1992 and the Hon'ble Finance Minister
                                                                              B
        rejected the representation on 26.5.1992.

        5. Vide our memorandum dt. 27.5.1992, the detenu was
        intimated about the result of the representation through
        the Superintendent, Central Jaii, Agra, which was received            c
        by the petitioner on 02.6.1992. Though apparently this
        office has taken one month, the fact is that the repre-
        sentation was given a thorough consideration in consult-
        ation with the Sponsoring Authority twice. Further, one has
        to take into consideration the time taken in transit. As such
                                                                              D
        there has been no delay at any stage and the representation
        has been processed as expeditiously as possible."

       A perusal of the above explanation given by the Union of India
explains the time taken in dealing with the rei;resentation. The period
taken by the postal authorities cannot be attributed to any delay or inaction E
or callousness on the part of the authorities considering such repre·
sentation. Now, if we consider the period after 20th April, 1992, it may be
noted that some time was taken in wrongly marking the representation to
some other branch by the receipt section of the department. However, the
representation was received in the concerned section of PITNDPS CELL F
on 27.4.1992. 25th and 26th April, 1992 were holidays. Much stress is laid
by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the time spent during the
period the representation was wrongly marked to some other branch. Mr.
Tulsi in this regard submitted that it was due to human error and the period
spent in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch is not a
long one, but only five days. We are satisfied with the above submission G
made by Mr. 'fulsi. It was be further noted that this representation was not
against the o~der of detention or any grounds in support of the detention
order, but it was a representation against the declaration made under
Section 10(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988. The period from 27.4.1992 till
27.5.1992 has been explained in detail in the counter affidavit filed before H
    404                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   this Court and a perusal of the above explanation shows that the time taken
    cannot be considered so as to draw an inference of inaction or callousness
    on the part of the authorities. Thus, we do not find any substance in the
    second ground of challenge levelled by the petitioner against the detention.

          Before parting with the case we would like to say that this Court has
B already laid down the law relating to detentions under the preventive
    detention laws during the last four decades. If the Government takes care
    that the detention cases arising under the preventive detention laws are
    handled by persons fully trained and having experience in such matters, the
    rights of the citizens can be safeguarded and the precious time of this Court
C can be saved. The detaining authorities are required to deal with such cases
    with more care and circumspection. They should not leave such cases to
    be dealt with by lower officials and should keep a track on such cases from
    beginning to the end and also take care that the representations, if any,
    made by the detenues are also dealt with expeditiously without any delay.
    In matters where the detention orders Me passed in relation to such
D persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining
    authorities should always apply their mind and show their awareness in this
    regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons
    on bail and stating the necessity of keeping such persons in detention under
  . the preventive detention laws. We earnestly hope that the concened
E authorities shall deal with such matters with special care.

          In the result, we dismiss this special leave petition.

    T.NA.                                                     Petition dismissed.