http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  519 of 2008

PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: Laishram Lincola Singh @ Nicolai

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/2008

BENCH: Dr.  ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    519 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1251 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the  Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench  allowing the habeas corpus petition filed by the respondent.   The habeas corpus petition was filed questioning the order of  detention passed by the District Magistrate, Manipur, Imphal  West, dated 23.9.2005 in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in  short the ’Act’) read with Home Department’s order  No.17(1)/49/80-H(Pt) dated 6.9.2005, which was approved by  the State Government under order No.17(1)/947/2005-H  dated 5.10.2005 and again confirmed by order of  State  Government being No.17(1)/947/2005-H dated 7.11.2005  fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of  detention.  The order of detention was challenged primarily on  the ground that there was unexplained delay in disposing of  the representation made by the detenu. The High Court  accepted the plea that there was an unexplained delay.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  representation was made on 12.10.2005 and the Central  Government received the same on 31.10.2005.  It immediately  wrote to the State Government to give its parawise comments.   Such comments were received on 22.11.2005 and immediately  thereafter after consideration of all relevant aspects the order  of rejection was passed on 29.11.2005 which was  communicated to the detenu on 30.11.2005.     4.      It was submitted that the High Court did not even  consider the explanation given by the appellants to show that  there was, in fact, no delay.  No reason has been indicated by  the High Court in the impugned order to show any application  of mind to the relevant aspect.    

5.      There is no appearance on behalf of respondent.

6.      In Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Anr.  (2006 (5) SCC  676) it was held as under:

"6.     Coming to the plea that there was delay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

in disposal of the representation it is to be  noted that the order of detention is dated  1.12.2005.  The representation was sent on  11.12.2005 which was received by the  respondents on 15.12.2005.  The details were  called for on 16.12.2005 which were received  on 20.12.2005. The file was submitted on  21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under  Secretary and Deputy Secretary on  22.12.2005. The concerned Minister passed  order on 22.12.2005 and the order of rejection  which was passed on 27.12.2005 was issued  on 28.12.2005 which was sent to the  Superintendent of the Jail where the detenu  was incarcerated, which was communicated to  the detenu. It was received by the prison  authorities and it was served on the detenu on  the day it was received by the Jail authority.  The factual scenario indicated above indicates  that the representation was dealt with utmost  expedition.  There can be no hard and fast rule  as to the measure of reasonable time and each  case has to be considered from the facts of the  case and if there is no negligence or callous  inaction or avoidable red-tapism on the facts of  a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs  no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to  see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial,  safeguards provided in the law of preventive  detention is not lost in mechanical routine,  dull casualness and chill indifference, on the  part of the authorities entrusted with their  application. When there is remissness,  indifference or avoidable delay on the part of  the authority, the detention becomes  vulnerable. That is not the case at hand.  It  may be noted that the writ petition was filed  on 22.12.2005, even before the order of  rejection was served.  That being so the detenu  cannot make grievance that the State had not  explained the position as to how his  representation was dealt with."

7.      In Vinod K.Chawla v. Union of India and Ors. (2006 (7)  SCC 337), it was observed as under:  

"13. The contention raised cannot be judged by  any straitjacket formula divorced from facts.  This has to be examined with reference to the  facts of each case having regard to the volume  and contents of the grounds of detention, the  documents supplied along with the grounds,  the inquiry to be made by the officers of  different departments, the nature of the  inquiry, the time required for examining the  various pleas raised, the time required in  recording the comments by the authorities of  the department concerned, and so on. 14. In L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral  (1981 (3) SCC 317)  it was held that there can  be no doubt that the representation made by  the detenu has to be considered by the  detaining authority with the utmost expedition  but as observed in Frances Coralie Mullin v.  W.C. Khambra (1980 (2) SCC 275) (SCC p. 279,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

para 5), "the time-imperative can never be  absolute or obsessive". In Madan Lal Anand v.  Union of India (1990 (1) SCC 81) the  representation dated 17-1-1989 of the detenu  who was detained under COFEPOSA was  rejected after more than a month on 20-2- 1989. After referring to L.M.S. Ummu Saleema  it was held that the detaining authority had  explained the delay in disposal of the  representation and accordingly the order of  detention cannot be faulted on that ground. In  Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991 (1) SCC  128) the representation made by the detenu on  18-12-1989 was rejected on 30-1-1990 and it  was contended that there was inordinate delay  in consideration of the representation. In the  explanation given in the counter-affidavit filed  in reply, it was submitted that considerable  period of time was taken by the sponsoring  authority in forwarding its comments. It was  contended on behalf of the detenu that the  views of the sponsoring authority were totally  unnecessary and the time taken by that  authority could not be taken into  consideration. The contention was repelled by  this Court and it was observed that consulting  the authority which initiated the proposal can  never be said to be an unwarranted exercise. It  was further emphasised that whether the delay  in considering the representation has been  properly explained or not would depend upon  the facts of each case and cannot be judged in  vacuum. Similarly, in Birendra Kumar Rai v.  Union of India (1993 (1) SCC 272) the petitioner  made a representation against his detention on  22-12-1990 which was rejected by the Central  Government after a month on 25-1-1991. It  was observed that the explanation offered for  the delay in consideration of the  representation was not such from which an  inference of inaction or callousness on the part  of the authorities could be inferred and  accordingly the challenge on the ground of  delay was rejected. The subsequent decisions  of this Court are also on the same lines and we  do not consider it necessary to refer to them as  the principle is well settled that there should  be no inaction or lethargy in consideration of  the representation and where there is a proper  explanation for the time taken in disposal of  representation even though it may be long, the  continued detention of the detenu would not  be rendered illegal in any manner.

15. The grounds of detention in the present  case are a long one running into 35  paragraphs which were accompanied by 82  documents running into 447 pages. The  representation made by the appellant was also  a fairly long one. The representation made by  the appellant on 24-3-1998 was received by  the Ministry on 27-3-1998. The comments of  the sponsoring authority were called on 30-3- 1998 which were received on 17-4-1998. The  comments were placed before the Secretary (R)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

through the ADG on 22-4-1998 (18th and 19th  being holidays). The decision of the Central  Government was taken and communicated on  29-4-1998 (25th and 26th being holidays). The  representation was also considered by the  detaining authority in the meantime and was  rejected on 21-4-1998. In the additional  affidavit filed on behalf of the sponsoring  authority before the High Court, it was stated  that the representation was received by them  on 2-4-1998 and the comments were  dispatched on 17-4-1998. During this period,  there were holidays on 4th, 5th, 8th to 12th  April, and only seven working days were  available. Again there were holidays on 18th,  19th, 25th and 26th April. Having regard to  the facts and circumstances of the case, we are  clearly of the opinion that the entire time taken  in consideration and disposal of the  representation made by the appellant has been  fully explained and it cannot be said by any  stretch of imagination that there was any  inordinate delay or unexplained delay in  considering the representation made by the  appellant. The challenge to the detention order  made on the ground of delay in consideration  of the representation made by the appellant  has no substance and deserves to be rejected."

8.      The order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and  is set aside.  The period of detention fixed by the order of  detention being over, it is open to the detaining authority to  consider whether there is any need for detaining the  respondent as the situation stands now.   

9.      The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.