Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. A perusal of the above explanation given by the Union of India explains the time taken in dealing with the representation. The period taken by the postal authorities cannot be attributed to any delay or inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities considering such representation. Now, if we consider the period after 20th April, 1992, it may be noted that some time was taken in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch by the receipt section of the department. However, the representation was received in the concerned section of PITNDPS CELL on 27.4.1992. 25th and 26th April, 1992 were holidays. Much stress is laid by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the time spent during the period the representation was wrongly marked to some other branch. Mr. Tulsi in this regard submitted that it was due to human error and the period spent in wrongly marking the representation to some other branch is not a long one, but only five days. We are satisfied with the above submission made by Mr. Tulsi. It was be further noted that this representation was not against the order of detention or any grounds hi support of the detention order, but it was a representation against the declaration made under Section 10(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988. The period from 27.4.1992 till 27.5.1992 has been explained in detail in the counter affidavit filed before this Court and a perusal of the above explanation shows that the time taken cannot be considered so as to draw an inference of inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities. Thus, we do not find any substance in the second ground of challenge levelled by the petitioner against the detention.