Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Held, representation sent by detenu must receive immediate attention and the same must be considered by the appropriate authorities as expeditiously as possible — Any delay in that regard would cause prejudice to the detenu — But, delay in disposal of representation, if satisfactorily explained, held, not fatal — Delay of 119 days occurring due to non-availability of translated copy of representation, which was in Tamil language, held, was an unavoidable delay — Said delay satisfactorily explained — Hence, not fatal — However, emphasised that such delays should be avoided, (2006) 5 SCC 142-A

Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Five representations sent — Except one, all the said representations disposed of in time — Effect — Held, the detention order could not be quashed on the ground of delay in disposal of the said one representation — Law that detenu has no right to get his successive representations based on the same grounds rejected earlier to be formally disposed of again, and that in any event no period of limitation is fixed for disposal of an application, taken note of, (2006) 5 SCC 142-B

Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Non-placement of relevant material before detaining authority — Withholding of material which was irrelevant and did not affect the decision of detaining authority, held, not fatal, (2006) 5 SCC 142-C

Preventive Detention

Evaluation of grounds of detention

— Non-placement of some material before detaining authority affecting one of the grounds stated in detention order — Validity of detention order — Detention order by itself sufficient to stand on its own on the basis of other grounds — Hence held, detention as a whole could not be said to be illegal, (2006) 5 SCC 142-D

Preventive Detention

Evaluation of grounds of detention

— Vagueness of grounds — Effect of vagueness — Vague nature of one of the grounds, held, would not vitiate the entire detention order if there are severable grounds, (2006) 5 SCC 142-E

Preventive Detention

Advisory Board

— Reference to the Board — Non-placement of representation sent by wife of detenu before Advisory Board — Challenge to detention order on ground of — Besides the said representation, four other representations were also sent on behalf of detenu — All materials available with State Govt. sent to Advisory Board — Said four representations were disposed of in time, though the representation sent by wife was disposed of belatedly — Held, no prejudice caused to detenu due to non-placement of the aforesaid representation before Advisory Board, (2006) 5 SCC 142-F

Preventive Detention

Advisory Board

— Reference to the Board — Delay in sending some relevant records to the Board — Effect — Reference to the Board though made within the statutory period of five weeks from the date of detention, but there was delay of one week, after expiry of the said stipulated period, in sending some relevant records to the Advisory Board — Held, the said delay by itself not sufficient to make the whole reference illegal and vitiated, (2006) 5 SCC 142-G

Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Sending of representations to wrong authorities — Delay occurring due to — Whether detenu can take advantage thereof, (2006) 5 SCC 142-H

Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Delay in passing detention order — Contention that detention order was passed after about two years of the alleged illegal act on the basis of stale materials and, therefore, the same was unsustainable — Allegations made against detenu were of serious nature involving crores of rupees — Transactions had been done in a clandestine manner with the help of foreign nationals — Detenu claimed himself to be a non-resident Indian — Held, the detaining authority had to consider these materials and cross-check the transactions — Hence, in view of the fact that these materials contributed to delay, contention regarding delay in passing of detention order could not be accepted, (2006) 5 SCC 142-I

Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Bar to passing of detention order — Contention that detention order could not have been passed against detenu as he was a non-resident Indian — But, no materials on record to prove the said fact — Hence held, order of detention rightly passed and not liable to be interfered with, (2006) 5 SCC 142-J