Holding

The right to make a representation against a preventive detention order is both a constitutional and statutory right, and any unexplained delay in disposing of such representation makes the detention illegal and unconstitutional.

Summary

The petitioners were detained under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and filed representations against their detention on 23 August 1995. They alleged that the State and Central Governments failed to dispose of these representations promptly, violating their right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act. The Court examined the procedural timeline and found undue delays and lack of satisfactory explanations, especially by the State Government, which hindered the Central Government’s disposal. It held that the right to make a representation is both a constitutional and statutory right and that any unexplained delay in disposing of it renders the detention illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the detention orders.

Issues considered

The delay in disposing of the petitioners' representations violates their right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Prevention of Black Marketing Act.
Whether the right to make a representation against a preventive detention order is a constitutional right, a statutory right, or both.
Whether the failure of the State and Central Governments to dispose of the representations within a reasonable time invalidates the detention order.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 22(5)

Subjects

preventive detentionright of representationArticle 22(5)Prevention of Black Marketing Actdelay in disposalconstitutional rightstatutory righthabeas corpusdetention order

Judgment

KUNDANBHAIDULABHAISHAIKH A
v.
DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 13, 1996

[KULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] B

Constitution of India-Art.22(5), Art. 32--Prevention of Black Market-
ing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980-Secs.
3(2), 2(a), 8(1) and 14-Detenue's 1ight to make representation denotes a
corresponding duty on the auth01ities to dispose of the representation at the c
earliest-Held, detenue's right is not only a constitutional right but also a
statutory right.

A1t. 32-Habeas Corpus-En01mous and grave allegations against the·
Detenu-Even then court would intervene on violation of fundamentql rights D
of the detenu.

The Petitioners were detained on 16.8.1995 under Sec.3(2) of the
Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were supplied to them
separately on the. same day. Both of them had made representations to the E
State Government on 23.8.1995.

The Petitioners in their writ petition for habea.s corpus contended
that the representation made by them against the order of detention were
not dealt with expeditiously and were not disposed of by State Government
at the earlie.st. · F

The Respondent State denied the allegations and contended that
there was no delay on their part in disposing of the representations. The
Respondent Central Government contended that even after repeated
reminders the State Government did not provide para-wise reply for the G
representations and as and when the replies were received, the repre-
sentations were disposed of without any delay.

HELD : 1.1. The representation of a Detenu has to be disposed of at
the earliest and if there has been any delay in the disposal of the repre-
sentation, the reasons for the delay must be indicated to the court or else the H
479
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
'
A unexplained delay or unsatisfactory explanation in the disposal of the
- representation would fatally affect the order of detention, and in that
situation, continued detention would be illegal, unconstitutional and bad. .-
(488-A-B; F]
1.2. The Petitioners' right was violated since their representation
B could not be disposed of expeditiously by the Central Government due to
the delay caused by the State Government. (490-A-B]

S.K. Abdul Kmim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (1969] 1 SCC 433;
Durga, Show & Ors., (1970] 3 SCC 696; Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West
Bengal, (1970] 1 SCC 219; Siwik Hanif v. State of West Bengal, (1974] 1 SCC
C 637; Raisuddin @Babu Tamchi v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1983] 4 SCC 537;
Frances Coralie Mullin v. WC. Khambra & Ors., (1980] 2 SCC 275; Mohinud-
din Alias Main Master v. Distlict Magistrate, Beed & Ors., (1987] 4 SCC 58;
Ram Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police & Ors., [1989] 3
SCC 113;AslamAhmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1989]
D 3 SCC 277' Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Alias Banti v. Union of India & Ors.,
(1990] 3 SCC 148; Gazi Khan Alias Chotia v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,
(1990] 3 SCC 459; State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Vaidvel Alias Sun-
daravadivel, JT (1992) 5 SCC 318; K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khades
v. Union of India & Ors., (1991] 1 SCC 476; Julia Jose Mavely v. Union of
India & Ors., (1992] Crl. LJ.109 (SC) and Devi Lal Mahto v. State of Bihar
E & Anr., AIR (1982) SC 1548, referred to.

State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmad, (1996] 1 SCC 337, distinguished.

2. The right to make representation against the order of detention is
not only a constitution right but a statutory right as well. It is implicit that
F there is a corresponding duty on the authorities to whom the representation
is made to dispose of the representation at the earliest or else the constitu-
tional and the statutory obligation to provide the earliest opportunity of
making a representation would lose both its purpose and meaning.
(486-C-D]
G 3. The right under the Act of 1980 has to be treated as an extension
ofthe constitutional right already available to a Detenu under Art. 22(5).

Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 39 and
Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, relied on. [486-F-G]

H John Martin v. The State of WE., AIR (1975) SC 775, referred to.
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 481

4. Though person found guilty of economic offences have to be dealt A
with a firm hand, but when it comes to the fundamental rights under the
constitution, this Court, irrespective of enormity and gravity of allegations
made against the Detenu, has to intervene. [490-E-F]

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.)
No. 491 of 1995.
B

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

With

Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 492 'of 1995.
c
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Mrs. Sheela Goel (NP), AK. Goel and V.H. Patel for the Petitioners.
D
B.K. Mehta, (Mrs. Rekha Pandey) for Mrs. H. Wahi for the Respon-

-. dent/State of Gujarat.

A. Subba Rao, Rajiv Sharma, G. Nageswara Reddy and D.S. Mehra
for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. These two petitions filed under Article 32
of the Constitution of India for writs in the nature of habeas corpus were
allowed by us a short order on 21st November, 1995. We now proceed to
give our reasons. F

2. Kundanbahi Dulabhai Shaikh, petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
491 of 1995 and Rameshchandra Somchand Shah, petitioner in Writ Peti-
tion (Crl.) No. 492 of 1995, were detained in jail in pursuance of the orders
dated 16th August, 1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedbad and
District Magistrate, Surat, respectively, under section 3(2) of the Preven- G
tion of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Com-

-- modities Act, 1980 (For short, "Act"). These orders are contained in
Annexure 'A' to the writ petition in both the cases. The grounds of
detention were supplied separately, though on the same date, and they are
contained in Annexure 'B'. H
~
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. -'

A 3. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 491/95 is the owner of a
godown where 4 barrels containing 800 litres of kerosene meant for dis-
tribution to the public under the Public Distribution Scheme were found
loaded on an auto-rickshaw. On enquiry made by the staff of the supply
Department, it was revealed that those barrels brought from Shreeji
Petroleum Agency, Sarkhej, at the instance of Shri Ishamilbhai who was in
B possession of the godown and that petitioner was the owner of the auto-
rickshaw. Ishamilbhai, on being questioned, have out that kerosene in 4
barrels was loaded at his· instance and that he was the tenant of the godown.
The grounds contain various other details. Which need not be mentioned
here as those details are not relevant to the question on which we intend
C to dispose of this petition.

4. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 492/95 carries on business in
government foodgrains in a fair price shop. He was to sell the wheat at the
concessional rate of Rs. per kg. but when his shop as also the registers and
documents contained therein were inspected by the staff of the supply
D Department, i.t was found that he had committed serious irregularities in
the sale of wheat. Consequently, he was detained under Section 3(2) of the ....,.
Act in order to prevent him from carrying on his activiti:es prejudicial to
the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities.

E 5. In both these petitions, the principal contention raised by the
counsel for the petitioners is that he representation made by the petitioners
against the order of detention were not dealt with expeditiously and were
not disposed of by the State Government at the earliest.

6. The opposite parties have filed counter-affidavits in which they
F have denied the allegations made by the petitioners and have set out in
detail as to how their representations were dealt with. The reply filed by
the State Govt. in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 491/95, so far as it relates to the
disposal of representation, is, as under :

"3. In fact, the above said representation dated 2-3.8.1995 made by
G the wife of the detenu Smt. Madinabibi Shaikh was addressed to
Chief Minister, Gujarat State, which was received by Chief
Minister's office on 25.8.1995, and was sent to the office of
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department which was received
by the office of the secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department
on 29.8.1995. The said representation thereafter was sent to ~he
--
H
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 483

Special Branch of Food and Civil Supplies Department. It was A
received by the concerned Branch, i.e. Special Branch on 1.9.1995.
The Special Branch put up a note on the said representation on
6.9.1995, as there were around 40 to 50 representations which were
pending for disposal during the said period. They were taken up
chronologically. Therefore, the said representation came to be put
B
up for disposal on 6.9.1995 as 5.9.1995 was holiday being Sunday.
The file was cleared by Section Officer on 7.9.1995 and submitted
by the Branch on 7.9.1995 to the Department which was cleared
by Department on 7.9.1995 and wa~ put up before the Deputy
Secretary who in turn cleared it on 8.9.1995 and submitted it before
the secretary who also cleared it on the same day and submitted c
the file before the Hon'ble Minister for Civil Supplies for his
orders. The file was cleared by the Hon'ble Minister on 12.9.1995
as 9.9. 1995 and 10.9.1995 were government holidays. The Minister,
Food and Civil Supplies, rejected the request of the petitioner and
confirmed the detention order. The file was received back by the D
Special branch from the concerned Minister and by a letter dated
14.9.1995 detenu was informed about the decision taken on the
said file of representation. It is, therefore, submitted from, the
above facts that there is no delay whatsoever in disposing the
representation made by the wife of the detenu so far as the State
Government is concerned." E

7. The Central Government, in its first counter affidavit, admitted
that the representation dated 2.9.1995 of the petitioner against the order
of detention was still pending, though it was received on 4.10.1995 along
with the State Government's covering letter dated 27.9.1995. It was F
indicated that the State Government did not sent its parawise comments
in spite of the telegram dated 12.10.95 and the reminder dated 19.10.95.
' However, in the Additional Affidavit dated 20.11.1995, the Central
Government says (through V.K. Jacob, Under Secretary in the Ministry
of Civil supplies) that comments from the State Government were G
received on 6.11.95 and, after due consideration, the representation of
the petitioner w~s rejected on 8.11.95.

8. The reply C'f the State Government with regard to the disposal
of representation in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 492/95 is as under : H
-~
)-
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. '

A "That th~ representation of the petitioner dated 23.8.95 addressed
to the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies (Annexure 'D' to the
writ petition) was received by the concerned Special Branch of the
Food and Civil Supplies Depart111;.e!1t through the office of the
Minister on 29.8.1995. The said representation was put up by the
Special Branch. alorig with the ftle and note on 2.9.1995. The file
B
of the said representation was then submitted before the deponent
on 5.9.1995 and the same was cleared by the deponent on the same
day. That the deponent forwarded the Concerned file to the
Deputy Secretary,. Department of Food and Civil Supplies. The
Deputy Secretary cleared this file on 6.9.1995 and submitted it
c before the Secretary who also cleared it on the same day, i.e.
6.9.1995. The representation was then sent to the Minister for Food
and Civil Supplies on 7.9.1995 for his orders. The file was received
back by the Special Branch on 8.9.1995. It is stated that the decision
regarding the rejection of the representation was communicated
to the detenu by a letter dated 11.9.1995.
D
Copies of the said representation of the petitioner were sent
to the Advisory Board on 12.9.95 before its scheduled meeting to
be held on 14.9.95.

E A copy of the said representation was also sent to the Central
Government by speed post letter dated 19.9.1995. The Central
Government asked for the comments of the State Govt. regarding
the said representation vide its telex dated 22.9.1995. Soon after
the telex was received by the special Branch of the Department,
the parawise remarks were translated in English and were sent to
F the Central Governmen"t by speed post lett~r dated 11.10.1995."

9. In this case, the Central Government has also filed a counter
affidavit in which the plea of the detenu with regard to the delay in the
disposal of his representation is answered as follows :
G "The contents of the para are not admitted hence denied. However
a representation dated 23.8.95 of the detenu forwarded by the State
Government vide letter dated 19.9.95 was received in the Ministry
on 21.9.95. After considering the contents of the representation of
the detenu, it was felt necessary that parawise remarks of the State
H Government should be called for and therefore, I called for the
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 485

same vide our telegram date 22.9.95. However in spite of our A
reminders dated 29.9.95 and 5.10.95 the same were received on
18.10.95. The Central Government therefore, examined the repre-
sentation on the basis of the facts available with them which are
sent by the State Government through Reports/grounds of deten-
tion through their letter dated 25.8.95. The representation was
B
rejected on 19.10.95 as there was no specific reasons furnished by
the detenu that may warrant the revocation of detention order.
The decision of the Central Government was conveyed to Supdt.
Central Prison, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad on 19.10.95 by telegram
with direction to convey to detenu. The ~tate Government was also
informed simultaneously on the same day." c
10. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides as under :

"When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made
under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority
making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such D
person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall
afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation
against the order.:

11. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, inter alia, provides as E
uhder:

- 11
8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person
affected by the order-(1) when a person is detained in pursuance
of a detention order, the authority .making the order shall ..... .
communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been F
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation .against the order to the appropriate Government."

12. The words "appropriate Government" have been defined in Sec-
tion 2(a) of the Act as under: G
"2(a). "appropriate Government" means, as respects a detention
order made by the Central Government or by an officer of the
Central Government or a person detained under such order, the
Central Government, and as respects a detention order made by
a State Government or by an officer of a State Government or as ·H
t
,-\

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A respects a person detained under such order, the State Govern- >
ment;"

13. Apart from the above, Section 14 of the Act provides that order
of detention may be revoked either by the State Government or by the
Central Government. The Central Government can revoke even those
B orders which have been made by the State Government. The Act also
provides that within seven days of the making of a order of detention, copy
of the order as also the grounds on which the order was passed shall be
sent to the Central Government.

C 14. From the above, it will be seen that the right to make repre-
sentation against the order of detention is not only a constitutional right
but a statutory right as well. Since the Constitution as also the Act specifi-
cally provide that the detenu shall be given the earliest opportunity of
making a representation against the order of detention, it is implicit that
D there is a corresponding duty on the authorities to whom the representation
is made to dispose of the representation at the earlier or else the constitu-
tional and the statutory obligation to provide the earliest opportunity of
making a representation would lose both its purpose and meaning.

15. We may, at this stage, notice a frivolous c;.ontention, raised, on
E behalf of the respondents that since the authorities to whom the repre-
sentation can be made have not been specified in Article 22(5) ·of the
Constitutioti, the right of the detenu of making a representation to the
appropriate government cannot be treated to be a constitutional right.
Respotidents, for this purpose, have placed reliance upon the decision of
F this court in John Martin v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 775.

16. It will be seen that,.right to represent has been given Mt only by
Article 22(5) of the Constittitiol1 but also by Sectiol18 of the Ad. the right
provided under the Act has; therefore, to be treated as an extension of the
constitutional right already available to a detenu under Article 22(5). The
legislature has, in fact, given effect to the constitutional right by providing

--
in Section 8 of the Act that the detenu shall ~ave .the :Tight of making a
representation to the appropriate government. In Amit Shad Khan L. v.
Hmingliana & Ors., [1991) 4 SCC 39, this Court, while considering the
provisions of the conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of
H Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, observed as under :
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE (S. SAGI-HR AHMAD] 487

"This clause casts a dual obligation on the Detaining Authority, A
namely (i) to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which
the detention order has been made; and (ii) to afford to the detenu
the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
detention order. Consequently the failure to communicate the
grounds promptly or to afford the detenu an opportunity of making
B
a representation against the order would clearly violate the con-
stitutional guarantee afforded to the detenu by clause (5) of Article
22 of the Constitution. It is by virtue of this right conferred on the
detenu that the Detaining Authority considers it a duty to inform
the appellant-detenu of his right to make a representation to the
State Government, the Central Government and the Advisory C
Board. T71e right to make a representation against the detention order
thus flows from the constitutional guarantee enshrined in A1ticle 22
(5) which casts an obligation on the auth01ity to ensure that the
detenu is afforded an earli:est opp01tunity to exerCise that light, if he
so desires".
D
This decision was considered in Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1994) 2 SC 337 and it was laid down as under :

"The right to make representation against the detention order
flows from Art. 22(5). But that article does not say to whom such E
representation ~ to be made. Such a representation must be made
to the authority who has power to approve, rescind or revoke the
decision. To know who has such power, the provisions of the Act
have to be seen. Under the T.N. Act any detention order made
by the empowered officer shall cease to be in operation if not

- approved within 12 days. Therefore, the Act never contemplated F
that the detaining authority has specific power to revoke and it
cannot be inferred that a representation can be made to it within
the meaning of Art. 22(5). Therefore, representation to be made
by the detenu, after the earlier opportunity was afforded to him,
can be only to the Government which has the power to approve G
or to revoke."

17. These decision are enough the reject the contention of the
respondents.

18. Turning now to the main question relating to the early disposal H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A of the representation, we may immediately observed that this Court. in a
large number of cases, has already laid down the principle in clear and
specific terms that the representation has to be disposed of at the earliest
and if there has been any delay in the disposal of the representation, the
reasons for the delay must be indicated to the court or else the unexplained
delay or unsatisfactory explanation in the disposal of the representation
B would fatally affect the order of the ·detention, and in that situation,
continued determination would become bad. This has been the consistent
view of this Court all along from its decision in Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v.
State of West Bengal, [1969] 1 SCC 433; In re : Durga show & Ors.,, [1970]
3 SCC 696 : Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 1 SCC 219;
C Sliaik Hanif v. State af West Bengal, [1971] 1 SCC 637; Raisuddin @ Babu
Tamchi v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1983) 4 SCC 537; Frances Coralie Mullin
v. W.C. Khambra & Ors., [1980] 2 SCC 275; Mohinuddin Alias Main Master
v. District Magistrate, Beed & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 58; Rama Dhondu Board
v. VK Saraf, Commissioner of Police & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 173; Aslam
D Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Saik v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 277;
Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v. Union of India & Ors., [1990) 3 SCC
148, right upto its reiteration in Gazi Klian alias Chotia v. State of Rajasthan
and Anr., [1990] 3 SCC 459.

19. Almost all these decisions were against considered in State of
E Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Vaidivel Alias Sundaravadivel, JT (1992) 5 SC 318
and above view was reiterated, which was repeated against in KM. Abdulla
kunhi & B.L. Abdul Kliader v. Union of India &Ors., (1991] 1 SCC 476 and
Julia Jose Maveli v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) Crl. L.J. 109 (SC).
--
p 20. In Mohinuddin and Ram Dhondu' cases (supra), it was provided
that inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of representation
would make the continued detention of a person, illegal and unconstitu-
tional In Devi Lal Malito v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR (1982) SC 1548, the
--
continued detention was held to have become bad on account of the
indifferent attitude of the Government in not attending tG the repre-
G sentation for about 10 days.

21. 1n·1>pite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the
past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Government and its
officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other
H files rusting ffi: the secretariat for various reasons including red tapism, the
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE (S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 489

... representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be
dealt with in the same fashion. The government and its officers will not
give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also,
A

this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore
the "liberty and freedom" to the person whose detention is allowed to
become bad by the government itself on account of his representation not
B
being disposal of at the earliest.

22. In both these cases, we have to read the old story of lethargy of
the State Government. In the first case, the representation dated 23.8.95
was received in the office of the Chief Minister on 25.8.95 and was
ultimately disposed of on 12.9.95 and the order was communicated to the c
detenu on 14.9.95. During this period, the file was being processed in the
government departments. It is pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the
representation, on being received in the office of the Chief Minister on
25.8.95 was sent to the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department,
where it was received on 29.8.95. The internal movement of the file thus D
took four days, The representation was then sent to the Special Branch
where it was received on l.~.95. The representation was taken up by the
Special Branch on 6.9.95. The inactivity in taking up the representation for
six days is explained by showing in the counter-affidavit that there were
about 40 to 50 representations pending for disposal and they were taken
up chronologically. This indicates that the representation was placed in the E
queue and was not given precedence over other representation which are
not said, in the counter-affidavit, to relate to detention orders. Even if they
related to preventive detention, then such of those which were ready for
disposal and in respect of which comments from various departments had
been gathered and other formalities completed should have been ·disposed F
of immediately and should not have been kept P.ending on the ground of
"chronological disposal" by saying that representations filed earlier by other
dctenus were still to be disposed of. The chronology must be broken as
soon as a representation is ready for disposal.

23. Apart from the above, the representation dated 2.9.95, which was G
made to the Central Government could not be disposed of for want of
comments from the State Government. It will be noticed that this repre-
sentation was lying with the State Government from 2.9.95 to 27.9.95 and
it was on that date that it was sent to the Central Government which
received it on 4.10.95. The Central Government, in spite of its telegrams H
<
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. ,
)
A and reminders, was not furnished the comments by the State Government
for over a month. The comments of the State Government were received
by the Central Government on 6.11.95 and the representation was disposed
of on 8.11.95. This again is a glaring example of the lethargy on the part
of the State Government, as a result of which petitioner's representation
could not be disposed of expeditiously by the Central Government with the
B
obvious consequence that the petitioner's right under Article 22 (5) of the
Constitution read with Section 8 of the Act was violated.

24. In the second case also, the representation dated 23.8.95 made
by the detenu was forwarded to the Central Government by the State
C Government under its letter dated 19.9.95 which was received on 21.9.95
by the Central Government, which by its telegram dated 22.9.95 and
reminders dated 29.9.95 and 5.10.95 called for the comments of the State
Government. The State Government, true to its colours, sent the comments
on 18.10.95. The representation was rejected by the Central Government
D on 19.10.95. The representation thus remained lying with the State Govern-
ment from 23.8.95 to 19.9.95 and when it was ultimately sent to the Central
Government, the comments were riot furnished by the State Government
till 18.10.95. Thus, in this case also, the guarantee of early disposal of
representation set out in Article 22(5) was infringed.

E 25. Black-marketing is a social evil. Persons found guilty of economic
offences have to be dealt with a firm hand, but when it comes to fundamen-
tal rights under the Constitution, this Court, irrespective of enormity and
gravity of allegations made against the detenu, has to intervene as was
indicate in Mahesh Kumar Chauhan's case(supra) and in an earlier
F decision in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. Distlict Magistrate, Kamrnp & Ors., AIR
(1974) SC 183, in which it was observed that the gravity of the evil to the
community resulting from anti-social activities cannot furnish sufficient
reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance
with the procedure established by the particularly as normal penal laws
would still be available for being invoked rather than keeping a person in
G detention without trial.

26. Learned Counsel for the respondents referred to us the decision
of this Court in State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmad, [1996] 1 sec 337 and I -

contended that this Court ignored the delay of over 23 days in the disposal
H of the representation. This decision is of no help to the respondents as the
K.D. SHAIKH v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD] 491

necessary facts on the basis of which the Court came to the conclusion that A
there was no delay in the disposal of representation, have not been set out.
All that has been said is that "in the facts and circumstances of this case,
the delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal".
Moreover, the period of detention had already expired and, therefore, what
was laid down therein would be of no assistance to the respondents.
B
27. In view of the foregoing discussion we, after having considered
the arguments of the counsel on both sides, by our order dated 21st
November, 1995, as aforesaid, allowed these writ petitions and have now
recorded the reasons therefor.

V.M. Petitions allowed. c