Delhi High Court
Abdul Qahar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002IIIAD(DELHI)380, 2002CRILJ1709
JUDGMENT Khan, J.
1. Petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA for one year by order dated 29.1.2001. Though his detention period was to expire shortly by the end of this month but he still wants a verdict on the validity of his detention.
2. One Ms. Olga Kozireva, an Uzbek passport holder was apprehended for alleged smuggling of Chinese silk fabrics in India. Petitioner was also arrested in this connection on 30.11.2000 and later released on bail on 1.2.2001. He was eventually detained to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods on 29.1.2001. He made a representation against this which was rejected on 26.3.01. His order of detention was thereafter referred to Advisory Board and was confirmed on 30.3.01.
3. Petitioner challenges his detention on all conceivable grounds ranging from misue of power to vagueness and irrelevancy of grounds of detention and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. According to him, respondents had misused their power in detaining him and had served vague and irrelevant grounds on him without any application of mind. He also alleges that they had delayed disposal of his representation and had also failed to furnish him some legible copies of documents from pages 96 to 135 along with grounds. He was alleges also not supplied copy of bail order dated 22.9.2000 of Ms.Olga Kozireva. All this according to him amounted to denial of opportunity to him to make an effective representation against his detention.
4. Though petitioner had taken all these grounds in a generalised form, his counsel Mr. Bhardwaj pressed in service last two grounds only viz. non-supply of legible copies of documents and alleged delay in disposal of detenu's representation.
5. Respondents have denied all this in their counter and have justified the detention order. It is submitted by them that legible copies of relied upon documents were supplied to detenu of which he had acknowledged receipt. Bail order dated 22.9.2000 was irrelevant for his purposes and not liable to be given to him. It is also denied that any delay had occurred in the disposal of his representation which was received in the Ministry on 7.3.01 and disposed of on 28.3.01 in 21 days.
6. We don't propose to examine all the grounds taken by the detenu in his petition, (some of which are general in nature and otherwise lacking in substance) because his counsel had confined his attack only on two grounds viz. non-supply of legible copies of documents from pages 93-135 and some adjudication orders and delay in disposal of detenu's representation.
7. It is well settled that non-supply of relied upon documents by the detaining authority invalidates a detention as it tentamounts to denial of opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation against his detention depriving him of a valuable safeguard provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It would lead to same consequence when such documents are furnished but are illegible because a detenu in that event would again be deprived of this opportunity. But a mere allegation in this regard would not satisfy the requirement to vitiate the detention unless it was brought home that supplied documents were so ineligible that these could not be used to make an effective representation. It would be only in such a situation the detention would be invalidated.
8. In the present case, it is the other way round. The copies of documents submitted to the court, though not in the same form as supplied to the detenu, could not be branded or treated ineligible by any standard. These could be read and gone through and their text and context gathered with ease.
9. Petitioner's plea in this regard seems to be his mere ipsi dixit and bereft of any substance. It is also not shown how and in what manner it had prejudiced him and disabled him to make a representation against his detention. The first ground, therefore, fails and is rejected.
10. The second ground also deserves the same fate and treatment. Firstly because petitioner had failed to indicate and specify any delay in the disposal of his representation. He had again raised this plea in a generalised form without specifying the delay and the prejudice caused by it in the process. Respondents, on the other hand, had sufficiently explained the manner in which they had handled the representation and disposed of. We have not come across any unreasonable or inordinate delay in its disposal so as to vitiate the detention order. Record shows that petitioner's representation was disposed of in 21 days, which was a reasonable time, in our view. It can't be, therefore, held that its disposal was unduly delayed causing prejudice to the detenu which would invalidate the detention.
11. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.