http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MOHINUDDIN @ MOIN MASTER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEED & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1987

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1977            1987 SCR  (3) 668  1987 SCC  (4)  58        JT 1987 (3)   173  1987 SCALE  (2)128  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC1861  (18)  R          1990 SC1597  (19)  RF         1992 SC2161  (5,8)

ACT:     National  Security  Act,  1980:  Section   8--Preventive Detention-Representation by detenu--Disposal of--Unexplained and  unreasonable delay--Detention whether illegal  and  in- valid--Failure  to consider representation  without  waiting for  opinion  of Advisory Board-Detention  whether  rendered invalid.     Constitution of India, Articles 22(5), 32 &  226--Habeas Corpus    petition--Preventive    detention--Validity     of order--Burden  of  proof on detaining  authority--Effect  of unexplained  and unreasonable delay in disposal of  detenu’s representation--Rule nisi--Persons competent to file return.     Practice  &  Procedure.  Writ Petition--Issuance of writ of habeas corpus--Disallowance on ground of imperfect plead- ings-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant was placed under detention on September 8, 1986,  consequent upon an order of detention passed  by  the District  Magistrate,  Beed under s. 3(2)  of  the  National Security Act, 1980 on his being satisfied that it was neces- sary to do so ’with a view to preventing him from acting  in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order’. He was served with the grounds of detention alongwith copies of  the  relevant documents on September 14,  1986.  He  ad- dressed  a  representation to the Chief Minister,  State  of Maharashtra  on September 22, 1986 through the  Superintend- ent, Central Jail, Aurangabad, who forwarded the same to the State  Government,  Home  Department which  received  it  on September 26, 1986, and on the same day forwarded it to  the District  Magistrate for his comments. On October  3,  1986, the  District Magistrate returned the  representation  along with  his  comments and the same were received in  the  Home Department on October 6, 1986. The State Government had,  in the  meanwhile, accorded its approval to the impugned  order of detention under s. 3(4) of the Act on September 18, 1986. On  October 6, the appellant made another representation  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the Advisory Board against the order of detention. 669 The  Advisory Board met on October 8, 1986,  considered  the representation and forwarded its report to the State Govern- ment on October 13 recommending confirmation of the order of detention. Thereafter, the representation made by the appel- lant  was  processed in the Home Department along  with  the report  of  the Advisory Board and forwarded  to  the  Chief Minister’s Secretariat where the same was received on  Octo- ber 23, 1986. The representation remained undisposed in  the Chief  Minister’s Secretariat and was put up before  him  on November 17, 1986 and he rejected the same.     Upon these facts, the appellant moved the High Court  by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the  grant of a writ of habeas corpus on the next day i.e. on  November 18, 1986 contending that his continued detention was  uncon- stitutional  and  void  inasmuch as  there  was  inordinate, unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority  to consider  and  dispose of his representation  which  was  in violation of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Art. 22(5) read with s. 8 of the National Security Act. The  writ petition  was dismissed by the High Court inter alia on  the ground  of defective pleadings regarding the delay in  Chief Minister’s Secretariat in dealing with the representation.     In the appeal by special leave, the District  Magistrate in his counter affidavit denied that there was any unreason- able delay in the disposal of the representation and submit- ted  that  no such ground regarding unreasonable  delay  was taken in the High Court in the writ petition, and was raised for  the  first time before this Court,  presumably  on  the reasoning of the High Court. In the other counter  affidavit the  Desk Officer, Home Department (Special)  explained  the reasons  for the delay in the Chief  Minister’s  Secretariat asserting that the Chief Minister remained preoccupied  with very  important matters of the State during the period  from October  23, 1986 to November 17, 1986 and therefore it  was not  possible for him to have dealt with the  representation earlier. Allowing the appeal,     HELD:  1.The  continued detention of the  appellant  was illegal and he must be set at liberty forthwith. [679G]     2.1  It is incumbent on the State to satisfy  the  Court that the detention of the petitioner/detenu was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions of the Act but  also strictly in accord with the  constitutional  safe- guards embodied in Art. 22(5). [674F] 670     2.2  The  constitutional right of the detenu to  make  a representation guaranteed by Art. 22(5) is a valuable  right and is not a mere formality. It includes by necessary impli- cation the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the  representation  by the authority to whom  it  is  made. [677E]     In the instant case, there were two representations made by the appellant, one to the Chief Minister dated  September 22,  1986 and the other to the Advisory Board dated  October 6,  1986.  While the Advisory Board acted  with  commendable despatch  in  considering the same at its  meeting  held  on October  8,  1986 and forwarded its report  on  October  13, 1986,  it  was  not till November 17, 1986  that  the  Chief Minister  look at it. There was no reason why he  could  not deal with it with all reasonable promptitude and  diligence. The  explanation  that  he remained  preoccupied  with  very important matters of the State, which involved tours as well as  Cabinet meetings, was no explanation at all.  There  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

therefore,  failure  on the part of the Government  to  dis- charge  its obligations under Art. 22(5). [676H-677B;  679F, 679E, 676G]     2.3 The constitution of an Advisory Board under s. 9  of the Act does not relieve the State Government from the legal obligation  to consider the representation of the detenu  as soon  as  it is received by it. The two obligations  of  the Government  to refer the case of the detenu to the  Advisory Board and to obtain its report on the one hand, and to  give an earliest opportunity to him to make a representation  and consider  the representation on the other, are two  distinct obligations independent of each other. There is thus a  duty cast  on the Government to consider the representation  made by the detenu without waiting for the opinion of the Adviso- ry Board. [677E, G, D]     Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral & Ors. [1979]  2 SCC 637, referred to.     The  failure  of the Government in the instant  case  to consider the representation without waiting for the  opinion of the Advisory Board renders the continued detention of the appellant invalid and constitutionally impermissible. [678F]     3.  In return to the rule nisi issued by this  Court  or the  High  Court  in a habeas corpus  petition,  the  proper person  to file the same is the District Magistrate who  had passed the impugned order of detention, and he must  explain his subjective satisfaction and the grounds therefore and if for  some good reason the District Magistrate is not  avail- able, the 671 affidavit must be sworn by some responsible officer like the Secretary  or the Deputy Secretary to the Government in  the Home  Department who personally dealt with or processed  the case  in the Secretariat or submitted it to the Minister  or other  officer duly authorised under the Rules  of  Business framed by the Governor under Art. 166 of the Constitution to pass  orders  on behalf of the Government in  such  matters. [674F-675A]     Niranjan  Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1973] 1  SCR 691;  Habibullah Khan v. State of West Bengal, [1974] 4  SCC 275;  Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr., [1974] 4  SCC 455  and  Mohd. Alam v. State of West Bengal, [1974]  4  SCC 463, referred to.     In  the instant case, no one has filed any affidavit  to explain  the delay in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat.  The counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate  contains a  bare denial that there was any unreasonable delay in  the disposal of the representation. As regards the delay in  the Secretariat  he adverts to the affidavit filed by  the  Desk Officer,  Home  Department and asserts that it  reveals  the different steps that were taken. There is in fact no  expla- nation  offered as regards the delay in the disposal of  the representation in the Secretariat. [678G-679C]     4.  It was an improper exercise of power on the part  of the  High  Court  in disallowing the writ  petition  on  the ground  of imperfect pleadings. The rule that  a  petitioner cannot be permitted to raise grounds not taken in the  peti- tion  at  the hearing cannot be applied to  a  petition  for grant  of  a  writ of habeas corpus. It is  enough  for  the detenu  to say that he is under wrongful detention, and  the burden lies on the detaining authority to satisfy the  Court that  the detention is not illegal or wrongful and that  the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. [674DE]     In the appeal the appellant having raised the ground  of delay in disposal of his representation in Chief  Minister’s Secretariat it was the duty of the State Government to  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

placed  all the material along with the  counter  affidavit. [679B]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1987.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  19.1.1987  of  the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 103 of 1986. 672 Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant.     B.A.  Masodkar,  A.S. Bhasme and  A.M.  Khanwilkarforthe Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the  judgment  and order of the High Court of  Bombay  dated January  19, 1987 rejecting the petition under Art.  226  of the  Constitution filed by the appellant in the  High  Court for grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant has been placed under detention by the impugned order dated September 7,  1986  passed by the District Magistrate, Beed  under  s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on his being  satis- fied that it was necessary to do so ’with a view to prevent- ing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the mainte- nance  of  public order’. The appellant challenged  the  im- pugned  order of detention on grounds inter alia that  there was infraction of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Art.  22(5) read with s. 8 of the Act inasmuch as there  was inordinate,  unexplained delay on the part of the  detaining authority to consider and dispose of his representation.     On  the view that we take, it is not necessary  to  deal with  the facts elaborately. The material facts  are  these. The  appellant was taken into custody on September  8,  1986 and was lodged at the Aurangabad Central Prison,  Aurangabad where he is now detained. He was served with the grounds  of detention along with the copies of the relevant documents on September  14, 1986. It appears that a week thereafter  i.e. on  September 22, 1986 he addressed a representation to  the Chief  Minister through the Superintendent, Aurangabad  Cen- tral  Prison, Aurangabad which the Superintendent  forwarded to  the  Home Department on September 24,  1986.  The  State Government,  in  the meanwhile, under s. 3 (4)  of  the  Act accorded its approval to the impugned order of detention  on September  18, 1986. On October 6, 1986 the  appellant  made another  representation to the Advisory Board which met  and considered the same on October 8, 1986. On October 13,  1986 the Advisory Board after considering the representation made by  the appellant together with the materials placed  before it forwarded its report to the State Government recommending confirmation  of  the impugned order of detention  as  there was,  in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention  of the appellant. Acting upon the report of the Advisory Board, the  State Government by its order dated November  19,  1986 confirmed the order of detention. In the mean- 673 time,  the  appellant moved the High Court on  November  13, 1986.     The  main ground on which the legality of  the  impugned order  of detention was assailed in the High Court was  that although the appellant had addressed a representation to the Chief Minister on September 22. 1986, it was not  considered and disposed of by the Chief Minister till November 17, 1986 i.e.  there was unexplained, unreasonable delay in  disposal of  the  same. It was said that such unreasonable  delay  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

disposal of the representation was sufficient to render  the continued detention of the appellant illegal. The High Court did not think it necessary to call upon the respondents  and by  an oral judgment dismissed the writ petition  mainly  on the  ground  of imperfect pleadings. It  observed  that  the appellant had not specifically pleaded that there was unrea- sonable delay in the office of the Chief Minister which  had not been explained and therefore the detention was  illegal, but  his grievance was that his representation had not  been considered. It referred to paragraph 4 of the writ  petition where it is submitted:               "It  is submitted that in law, the State  Gov-               ernment  is bound to consider the  representa-               tion  before  the  decision  of  the  Advisory               Board,  but  in the instant case  neither  the               State Government has considered the  represen-               tation  of the petitioner nor  the  Government               has communicated its decision."               It  referred to the underlined portion of  the               averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition,               namely:               "Eight  weeks have elapsed since the  date  of               detention of the petitioner but still  neither               the State Government has taken any decision on               the representation forwarded through the  Home               Department nor the petitioner is  communicated               any decision pursuant to the report  .........               "     The High Court distinguished the decision of this  Court in  Harish Pahwa v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1981]  3 SCR 276 on the ground that in that case the Court had before it  the affidavit of the Government showing that it  had  no explanation to offer except that it had referred the  matter to the Law Department and also there was sufficient material to  show that there was unreasonable delay in  dealing  with the representation whereas in the present case there was  no such ground raised. The High Court disallowed the prayer for grant  of  a writ of habeas corpus mainly on the  ground  of defective pleadings, and 674 added  that  the appellant "had not even asked for  time  to amend the petition" and "put the respondents to notice".  It observed:               "While  the State undoubtedly has the duty  to               process  the  representation  of  the   detenu               promptly, it is also the duty of the petition-               er  to make specific adverments of  facts  and               their effect, if necessary, by amendment. This               is necessary to put the respondents to notice,               that  the  effect of these facts  have  to  be               answered  and explained. The  respondents  may               have an explanation as to why the Chief Minis-               ter  took so much time. On such submission  we               cannot  hold that the respondents have  failed               to explain delay or that the time taken by the               Chief Minister was wholly necessary. We should               not  be understood to have held that the  time               taken  by  the Government was  justified.  Far               from it. But we cannot allow the petitioner to               take  the  respondents by surprise by  such  a               style of pleading."     It was an improper exercise of power on the part of  the High Court in disallowing the writ petition on the ground of imperfect pleadings. Normally, writ petitions are decided on the basis of affidavits and the petitioner cannot be permit-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

ted to raise grounds not taken in the petition at the  hear- ing. The same rule cannot be applied to a petition for grant of a writ of habseas corpus. It is enough for the detenu  to say that he is under wrongful detention, and the burden lies on  the  detaining authority to satisfy the Court  that  the detention is not illegal or wrongful and that the petitioner is  not entitled to the relief claimed. This Court  on  more occasions than one has dealt with the question and it is now well-settled  that it is incumbent on the State  to  satisfy the  Court that the detention of the  petitioner/detenu  was legal  and in conformity not only with the mandatory  provi- sions  of the Act but also strictly in accord with the  con- stitutional safeguards embodied in Art. 22(5). In return  to a  rule  nisi issued by this Court or the High  Court  in  a habeas  corpus petition, the proper person to file the  same is the District Magistrate who had passed the impugned order of detention and he must explain his subjective satisfaction and  the grounds therefore; and if for some good reason  the District Magistrate is not available, the affidavit must  be sworn by some responsible officer like the Secretary or  the Deputy  Secretary to the Government in the  Home  Department who  personally  dealt  with or processed the  case  in  the Secretariat or submitted it to the Minister or other Officer duly  authorised under the Rules of Business framed  by  the Governor  under Art. 166 of the Constitution to pass  orders on behalf of the Govern- 675 ment  in  such matters: Niranjan Singh v.  State  of  Madhya Pradesh, [1973] 1 SCR 691; Habibullah Khan v. State of  West Bengal, [1974] 4 SCC 275; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr.,  [1974]  4  SCC 455 and Mohd. Alam v.  State  of  West Bengal, [1974] 4 SCC 463.     In  the present case, in answer to the notice issued  by this  Court under Art. 136, the affidavit in reply has  been filed  by  Shri S.V. Joshi, District  Magistrate,  Beed  who passed  the impugned order of detention. There is a  general denial  in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit  that  there was unreasonable delay in the disposal of the representation made by the appellant. However, the delay in disposal of the representation  was in the Secretariat and therefore  it  is averred in paragraph 11:               "I say that the affidavit filed by Shri  Vish-               wasrao,   Desk  Officer,    Home    Department               (Special),   Mantralaya, Bombay on  behalf  of               State  of Maharashtra in the High Court  Bench               at  Aurangabad  will  reveal  that   different               steps,  as required by the provisions  of  Na-               tional Security Act, 1980 are taken immediate-               ly, within stipulated period." and it is then averred in paragraph 12 that the  contentions raised by the appellant with regard to delay have been dealt with by the High Court while deciding the writ petition.  It is  said that the appellant has raised the contention  about unreasonable  delay in disposal of his  representation,  for the first time in this Court presumably on the reasoning  of the  High  Court. There is on record an affidavit  sworn  by I.S.  Vishwasrao, Desk Officer, Home  Department  (Special), Mantralaya, Bombay in answer to the grounds 16(A) and 16(E). As  regards  the grounds 16(A) and 16(E) formulated  in  the petition  for grant of special leave regarding  unreasonbale delay, it is averred in paragraph 3 of the affidavit:               "I  say  that the  representation  dated  22nd               September, 1986 addressed to the Chief  Minis-               ter by the detenu was forwarded by the  Super-               intendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Auranga-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             bad  on  24th September, 1986. I  further  say               that  the said representation was received  in               the  Department  on 26th  September,  1986.  I               further  say that the parawise remarks on  the               said  representation were called for from  the               detaining authority, i.e. District Magistrate,               Beed  on 26th September, 1986 and  remarks  of               the  District  Magistrate dated  3rd  October,               1986 were received by the               676               Government on 6th October, 1986. I further say               that  thereafter, the said representation  was               processed together with report of the Advisory               Board and as stated in the earlier paragraphs,               the  said representation was rejected and  the               detention  of the detenu was confirmed by  the               Chief Minister on 17th November, 1986."               In the same paragraph, there is the  following               averment made with regard to delay in disposal               of the representation in the Chief  Minister’s               Secretariat:               "I  further  say that the Chief  Minister  was               pre-occupied in connection with very important               matters  of the State which involved tours  as               well as meetings outside Bombay. I further say               that  during  the period  from  23.10.1986  to               17.11. 1986, two Cabinet meetings were held at               Pune and Aurangabad, each meeting lasting  for               two  days i.e. 28th and 29th October, 1986  at               Pune  and  11th  and 12th  November,  1986  at               Aurangabad.  I further say that such  meetings               in Pune and Aurangabad are generally held once               a  year  to focus the  attention  on  regional               problems. I further say that the  preparations               for  these meetings as well as other  meetings               held  with the concerned Ministers  and  offi-               cials  demanded  a lot of time  of  the  Chief               Minister  and this naturally resulted in  some               delay in disposing of several cases  submitted               to  the Chief Minister including this case.  I               further  say that the cases where such  repre-               sentations are made in the detention  matters,               they  required  a close scrutiny  of  all  the               relevant  record  and careful  application  of               mind.  I therefore, respectfully  submit  that               the  time  taken for  passing  the  Government               order  in  this case should be viewed  in  the               light of the averments made in this  affidavit               and  therefore,  if  properly  considered,  it               cannot be said that the delay in disposing  of               the  representation is unreasonable and  unex-               plained."     It is somewhat strange that the State Government  should have  acted in such a cavalier fashion in dealing  with  the appellant’s representation addressed to the Chief  Minister. We  are satisfied that there was failure on the part of  the Government  to discharge its obligations under  Art.  22(5). The  affidavit reveals that there were  two  representations made  by  the  appellant, one to the  Chief  Minister  dated September 22, 1986 and the other to the Advisory Board dated 677 October  6, 1986. While the Advisory Board acted  with  com- mendable  despatch  in considering the same at  its  meeting held  on October 8, 1986 and forwarded its  report  together with  the  materials on October 13, 1986,  there  was  utter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

callousness on the part of the State Government to deal with the other representation addressed to the Chief Minister. It was  not  till  November 17, 1986 that  the  Chief  Minister condescended to have a look at the representation. When  the life  and liberty of a citizen is involved, it  is  expected that  the  Government will ensure  that  the  constitutional safeguards embodied in Art. 22(5) are strictly observed.  We say and we think it necessary to repeat that the gravity  of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activi- ties  can never furnish an adequate reason for invading  the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws.  The history  of personal liberty is largely the history  of  in- sistence on observance of the procedural safeguards.     Apart  from  the admitted inordinate delay, there  is  a fundamental defect which renders the continued detention  of the  appellant constitutionally invalid. As observed by  one of us (Sen, J.) in Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral & Ors., [1979] 2 SCC 637 there was a duty cast on the  Govern- ment  to  consider  the representation made  by  the  detenu without  waiting for the opinion of the Advisory Board.  The constitution of.an Advisory Board under s. 9 of the Act does not  relieve the State Government from the legal  obligation to  consider the representation of the detenu as soon as  it is received by it. It goes without saying that the constitu- tional  right  to make a representation guaranteed  by  Art. 22(5) must be taken to include by necessary implication  the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the repre- sentation by the authority to whom it is made. The right  of representation under Art. 22(5) is a valuable constitutional right  and is not a mere formality. The representation  made by  the appellant addressed to the Chief Minister could  not lie  unattended to in the portals of the  Secretariat  while the Chief Minister was attending to other political affairs. Nor  could  the Government keep the  representation  in  the archives of the Secretariat till the Advisory Board  submit- ted  its report. In Narendra’Purshotam Umrao’s case  it  was observed:  "Thus, the two obligations of the  Government  to refer  the case of the detenu to the Advisory Board  and  to obtain  its report on the one hand, and to give an  earliest opportunity to him to make a representation and consider the representation  on the other, are two distinct  obligations, independent of each other." After referring to the decisions of this Court in Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 3 SCR 479; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 1 SCR 543 678 and  Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 246  of 1969,  decided  on September 10, 1969 the  nature  and  dual obligation  of  the Government and  the  corresponding  dual right in favour of the detenu under Art. 22(5) was reiterat- ed.  The  following  observations of the  Court  in  Khairul Haque’s case were quoted with approval:               "It  is  implicit in the language of  Art.  22               that  the appropriate Government,  while  dis-               charging its duty to consider the  representa-               tion, cannot depend upon the view of the Board               on such representation. It has to consider the               representation on its own without being influ-               enced  by  any such view of the  Board.  There               was,  therefore, no reason for the  Government               to  wait  for  considering  the   petitioner’s               representation  until  it  had  received   the               report of the Advisory Board. As laid down  in               Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal, the obli-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             gation  of  the appropriate  Government  under               Art.  22(5) is to consider the  representation               made by the detenu as expeditiously as  possi-               ble.  The consideration by the  Government  of               such  representation has to be, as  aforesaid,               independent  of any opinion which may  be  ex-               pressed by the Advisory Board.                         The  fact  that Art.  22(5)  enjoins               upon the detaining authority to afford to  the               detenu  the  earliest opportunity  to  make  a               representation must implicitly mean that  such               representation must, when made, be  considered               and disposed of as expeditiously as  possible,               otherwise,  it is obvious that the  obligation               to furnish the earliest opportunity to make  a               representation  loses  both  its  purpose  and               meaning." In  the circumstances, there being a failure on the part  of the State Government to consider the representation made  by the appellant addressed to the Chief Minister without  wait- ing  for  the  opinion of the Advisory  Board,  renders  the continued  detention of the appellant invalid and  constitu- tionally impermissible.     We have no manner of doubt that there is no  explanation whatever much less any reasonable explanation for the  inor- dinate delay in consideration of the representation made  by the  appellant addressed to the Chief Minister and  that  by itself  is  sufficient to invalidate the impugned  order  of detention.  In fact, no one has filed any affidavit  to  ex- plain the cause for the delay in Chief Minister’s Secretari- at. The counter-affidavit filed by Shri S.V. Joshi, District Magistrate contains 679 a bare denial in paragraph 2 that there was any unreasonable delay in the disposal of the representation. As regards  the delay in disposal of the representation in the  Secretariat, he  adverts in paragraph 11 to the affidavit filed by  Vish- wasrao, Desk Officer, Home Department on behalf of the State Government  and asserts that it reveals the different  steps that  were  taken and in paragraph 12 he  submits  that  the contention  about  unreasonable  delay in  disposal  of  the representation by the State Government was not raised in the High Court and it has been taken for the first time in  this Court.  Even so, the appellant having raised the  ground  in appeal  it  was  the duty of the State  Government  to  have placed  all the material along with  the  counter-affidavit. There is in fact no explanation offered as regards the delay in  disposal  of the representation in the  Secretariat.  We have already extracted the relevant portion from the affida- vit  of  Vishwasrao, Desk Officer. It is accepted  that  the representation  made by the appellant to the Chief  Minister on  September  22, 1986, forwarded  by  the  Superintendent, Aurangabad  Central Prison on the 24th, was received in  the Home Department on the 26th which in its turn forwarded  the same to the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate on  the  same day i.e. 26th for his comments.  The  District Magistrate  returned the representation along with his  com- ments  dated October 3, 1986 which was received by the  Gov- ernment on the 6th. It is said that thereafter the represen- tation was processed together with the report of the Adviso- ry  Board and was forwarded to the Chief  Minister’s  Secre- tariat  where the same was received on October 23, 1986.  It is enough to say that the explanation that the Chief  Minis- ter  was  "pre-occupied with very important matters  of  the State  which involved tours as well as two Cabinet  meetings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

at  Pune  on October 28 and 29, 1986 and  at  Aurangabad  on November 11 and 12, 1986" was no explanation at all why  the Chief Minister did not attend to the representation made  by the appellant till November 17, 1986 i.e. for a period of 25 days.  There was no reason why the representation  submitted by the appellant could not be dealt with by the Chief Minis- ter  with all reasonable promptitude and diligence  and  the explanation  that he remained away from Bombay is  certainly not  a reasonable explanation. In view of the  wholly  unex- plained and unduly long delay in the disposal of the  repre- sentation by the State Government, the further detention  of the  appellant  must be held illegal and he must be  set  at liberty forthwith.      For  these  reasons,  the appeal must  succeed  and  is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. P.S.S.                                                Appeal allowed. 680