Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mpda in Viki Baban Galte vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 18 January, 2017Matching Fragments
10.8.2016 to 26.8.2016 has been explained by Shri. Suresh Khade Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai by filing two affidavits. Affidavit affirmed on 5.10.2016 was filed in relation to ground 5(f), however, thereafter the petition was amended and ground 5(i) was added in relation to delay in considering the representation. This ground was replied by filing additional affidavit which was affirmed on 12.1.2017. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the representation of the detenu dated 5.8.2016 was received by the Registry of the Home Department on 10.8.2016 and the representation was rejected on 26.8.2016. Mr. Yagnik, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondents submitted that the representation made to the State Government was attended to as expeditiously as possible and there was no delay on the part of the authorities concerned in deciding the said representation. He took us through the relevant dates as well as the affidavits and submitted that on consideration of the relevant dates, the representation was attended to as jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc expeditiously as possible and there was no delay much less; inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in arriving at a decision on the representation. He submitted that after the receipt of the representation on 10.8.2016, the same was scrutinized in the Central Registry and thereafter it was marked to Visha-3(b) Desk (MPDA Desk) on the very same day i.e. 10.8.2016. Thereafter it was marked to another Clerk to take entry in the register on 11.8.2016. The Registry Clerk took entry on 12.8.2016. Mr. Yagnik submitted that there is only one clerk dealing with Outward despatch to the various departments in Mantralaya. He submitted that letters are received everyday by the hundreds in the Central Registry which are scrutinized, segregated and then sent to the Outward despatch clerk to be entered in the outward despatch register. After entry in this register, the letter is sent to the despatch section which sends it to the concerned department. Mr. Yagnik the learned A.P.P. produced files before us which show that the outward entry of the letter to MPDA Desk was jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc made on 12.8.2016. There were holidays on 13.8.2016 (Second Saturday), 14.8.2016 (Sunday) and 15.8.2016 (Independence day). The representation was sent to dispatch section on 16.8.2016 by the Registry. As there was holiday on 17.8.2016 (Pateti / Parsi New year) it was sent to Visha-3(b) Desk (MPDA Desk) on 18.8.2016 by the Registry. Thus the representation was received by MPDA Desk on 18.8.2016. Thereafter the remarks were called from the detaining authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Pune vide letter dated 18.8.2016. The detaining authority was asked to submit its remarks immediately. It may be stated that the Home Department is in Mumbai and detaining authority is from Pune. The remarks of the detaining authority were received on 22.8.2016 vide letter dated 20.8.2016. Thereafter the concerned Assistant submitted the file containing remarks of the detaining authority along with the representation of the detenu to the Section Officer on 22.8.2016. The Section Officer endorsed it on 22.8.2016 and forwarded it to the Deputy jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc Secretary on the same day. The Deputy Secretary endorsed it on 22.8.2016 and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on the very same day. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) was busy on 23.8.2016 and 24.8.2016 due to some very urgent office work. On the next day i.e. on 25.8.2016 it was a holiday on account of 'Dahi Handi', therefore, on 26.8.2016 the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered the representation of the detenu and the remarks of the detaining authority and rejected the representation on 26.8.2016 after applying his mind. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenu vide letter dated 26.8.2016.
7 Mr. Tripathi submitted that there are two pockets of delay. The first delay is after the Registry received letter of the detenu on 10.8.2016, the representation reached MPDA Desk on 18.8.2016. Thus, he submitted that there was a delay of 7 days. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that in jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc between this period of 7 days, 4 days were holidays i.e. 13 th, 14th, 15th and 17th August, 2016 and after excluding these holidays, there was a delay of 3 days in this period. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions has excluded holidays while computing delay. Some of these decisions are in the case of (1) Noor Salman Makani Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 1 SCC 381, (2) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C. Subramani reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 2161. As far as this period from 10.8.2016 to 18.8.2016 is concerned, it is seen that the letter was received in the Central Registry. It is stated that hundreds of letters are received in the Central Registry of Mantralaya every day and more than hundred letters are pertaining to the Home Department. These letters have to be segregated and thereafter marked to the particular department to which it pertains. Thereafter, it would be entered in the Outward Register and then sent to the despatch section. The despatch section sends it to the concerned department. One clerk would scrutinize it in the Central Registry and then he decides to jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc which department it belongs, and thereafter it would be sent to be entered in the Outward Register, thereafter sent to despatch department to be sent by outward dispatch to that particular department. Every entry has to be made in the outward register after which the letter can be sent to the concerned department. In the present case, it is seen that the representation was received on 10.8.2016 thereafter it was scrutinized and it was marked to MPDA Desk. The representation was sent to another clerk on 11.8.2016 to take entry in the outward register. Entry has to be made in the outward register and only then the letter can be sent to the MPDA Desk. Therefore, on the very next day i.e. on 11.8.2016 it was sent to the clerk to take entry in the outward register after which the letter was sent to the MPDA Desk. As stated earlier, hundreds of letters are received every day in the central Registry. Thereafter they are segregated and then sent to the concerned department, hence, the outward register clerk has to deal with all these letters which have been sent to jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc each department in Mantralaya. Hence, it would take him sometime to make outward entry in the register because the communication of the detenu is not the only letter which is received by this clerk to be entered in the outward register and then to send to despatch section. The representation was sent to the clerk dealing with outward register on 11.8.2016 and on the very next day, he took entry in the register. However, it is seen that thereafter there were three holidays i.e. on 13 th, 14th and 15th August, 2016. On 16th August, 2016 the letter was sent to the dispatch section by the Registry. Again on 17 th August, 2016 there was holiday, hence, it was received by the MPDA Desk on 18.8.2016. As stated earlier, the Supreme Court in large number of decisions while computing delay has excluded holidays. Thus, it is seen that the period when the representation was received on 10.8.2016 to 18.8.2016, looking to the facts of this case, it can be said that the representation was attended to with utmost expedition.
jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc 8 Mr. Tripathi then contended that after the
representation was received by the MPDA Desk, there is unexplained delay of two days i.e. 23rd and 24th August, 2016 on which dates, it is stated that the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) was busy on account of some very urgent office work, hence, he could not attend to the representation. It is seen that after the representation was received by MPDA Desk on 18th August, 2016, parawise remarks were called on the very same day and they were received on 22.8.2016. As parawise remarks had to be called from Pune, it would obviously take 3 to 4 days. Parawise remarks were received on 22.8.2016 and the representation was rejected on 26.8.2016. On 25.8.2016, there was holiday on account of 'Dahi Handi'. Thus, it is seen that at the most, it can be said that on 23.8.2016 and 24.8.2016 there is non-explanation for the delay as the nature of urgent office work has not been stated in the affidavit. However, we are of the opinion that even period of 23.8.2016 and 24.8.2016 has been explained by the authority by stating jdk 13.crwp.2980.16.j.doc that there was some very urgent office work, we see no reason to disbelieve this reason. Even otherwise, at the most, it can be said that there is delay in considering the representation of only these two days i.e. 23.8.2016 and 24.8.2016. This delay of 2 days cannot be said to be such as to render the continued detention illegal.
(b) the State Government or such officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said Section 3 after being satisfied as provided in that Section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds."
21 Thus, even if it is assumed that the ground relating to CR No. 43 of 2016 is not relevant for issuing the detention order under the MPDA Act, the same can be severed in view of Section 5A of the MPDA Act. This would mean that the detention order is based on only 4 grounds. These 4 grounds, in our opinion, are sufficient for the detaining authority to reach his subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of MPDA Act as he is a 'dangerous person'.