Girija Prashad vs Union Of India
1990 Latest Caselaw 279 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) The petitioner, Shri Girija Prashad, through this petition has challenged the impugned order of detention dated 12th December, 1989 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and also engaging in transporting smuggled goods, under Section 3(1) to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2) The Petitioner appears to have been involved .and arrested in a criminal case regarding seizure of foreign marked gold by the Customs authorities and has been lodged in the Central Prison, Patna.

(3) The impugned order.has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. However, the principal ground taken by him is that order of detention was passed on 12th December, 1989 and was served on the petitioner on 15th December. 1989 in the Central Prison, Patna. He was served impugned order, grounds of detention and other relevant documents, relied upon by the detaining authority, in English language which, according to him he does not know. In fact he knows Hindi only.

(4) PARAGRAPH. 5 of the petition, in which the petitioner has made an avernment that he does not know English language where as , has been supplied the documents in this language, has not been denied clearly and specifically. The reply given is evasive and vague. Further, in paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner has made specific averments that he was served with the order of detention, grounds of detention in Hindi language on 30th January, 1990 in jail, i.e., on 46th day of the petitioner's detention and that he was, as already stated, communicated the order of detention, grounds of detention and other documents relied upon the English language only. Since he was not given all the aforementioned documents in Hindi within the statutory period provided under Section 3(3) of the Act he has been denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention order and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed The only reply given by the respondents in counter affidavit is that para 7 needs no reply. In other words, these facts have not been rebutted and as such stand admitted. The petitioner again has made averments in Grounds (e) and (g) of para 9 to the above effect which have also not been denied in the counter affidavit specifically. Further, we do not find anything in the counter affidavit which demonstrates that the petitioner was served with the above mentioned documents in Hindi within the statutory period provided under Section 3(3) of the Act and further that the petitioner knew English language also. Ms. Verghese, learned counsel for the respondents, also could not show from the records that the documents in Hindi were supplied to the petitioner within statutory period and that be also knew English language as well in which language he was supplied the documents aforementioned. In these circumstances, there is no option left to Court except to hold that the petitioner does not know English and be knows only Hindi language.

(5) Since the aforementioned documents, namely, the order of detention, grounds of detention and the other relevant documents relied upon, in Hindi, were not served upon the petitioner within the statutory period, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention with the result prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Consequently the impugned order stands vitiated in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

(6) In the result, the impugned order of detention dated 12th December, 1989 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless be is required in some other case.