Delhi High Court
Nisar Ahmed vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 May, 1991
Equivalent citations: 45 (1991) DLT 64
Author: R Gupta
Bench: R Gupta
JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) This criminal Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenges the validity of the order of detention F.No. 5/36/89- Home (Police II) dated 20.9.89 passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa by the Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration and for release of the petitioner de,tenu forthwith.
(2) The detailed circumstances in which the petitioner was arrested need not be mentioned for the disposal of this petition.
(3) One of the grounds challenging the order of detention is that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Rehana made a representation dated 25.9.90 to the President of India in which she requested that the detenu may be supplied certain documents which were referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention while passing the detention order. These documents are the flight manifesto dated 12.4.89 a complete copy of detenu's air ticket and order of the learned counsel remanding the detenu in custody till 15.4.89. She also stated in the representation that the detenu had been supplied documents pertaining to his detention in English/ Urdu which he does not understand. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Central Govt. vide order dated 5.11.90.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the representation made by the daughter of the petitioner was in gross violation of the rights of the petitioner available to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. On going through the grounds in Annexure A from pages 15 to 20. I find that the documents relied upon include an air ticket of the petitioner. When the representation was made that his flight manifesto and a complete copy of the detenu's air ticket should be supplied, I think it was incumbent upon the Central Govt. to inform that no flight manifesto or any other part of the air ticket asked for in the representation existed. Simple rejection of the representation without informing the petitioner the aforesaid facts, amounts to denial of the right vested in the petitioner. There is also a reference in the grounds of detention in para 3 that the petitioner was produced on 13489 by the department for seeking remand and he was remanded to judicial custody till 15.4.89. Application for judicial remand is also relied upon in the list of documents Along with the grounds of detention. In the representation a request was made to supply copy of the remand order to him. That request was also not allowed.
(5) The grounds of detention further mention clearly that the petitioner was an illiterate person and could understand Hindi only. However, the petitioner had been supplied documents pertaining to his detention in English/ Urdu in spite of specific request having been made that he should be supplied the documents in Hindi. The representation was thus rejected without application of mind.
(6) Therefore, I am of the view that detention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly quashed. He shall be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case or proceedings.
