Fateh Mohd. @ Fateh vs Union Of India And Another
1999 Latest Caselaw 1080 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order of his detention dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.

2. Various pleas have been raised but it is not necessary to refer to them because the petitioner's detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-supply of legible documents relied on the referred to the impugned order of detention, to the petitioner. It is averred in the petition that the relied upon documents accompanying the grounds of detention and supplied to the petitioner are not legible at all. This position has not been controverted by the State.

3. It is well settled that it being a constitutional imperative for the detaining authority to give the documents relied on and referred to the order of detention pari passu the grounds of detention, those should be furnished at the earliest so that the detenu could make an effective representation immediately instead of waiting for the documents to be supplied with. (Mohd. Zakir Vs. Delhi Administration . In M. Ahmad Kutty Vs. U.O.I. & Anr., (1990) 2 SCC 1, it was held that the question of demanding the document was wholly irrelevant and the infirmity in that regard was violative of constitutional safeguards enshrined in Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The detenu has, therefore, the statuary right to be furnished with the grounds of detention with the legible documents so referred to or relied upon. If there is failure or even delay in furnishing those documents it would amount to denial of the right to make an effective representation against his detention.

4. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the copies of the documents, (at pages 26 to 45 of the paper book), which were served on the petitioner alongwith the impugned order of detention are not legible at all. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, hold that the continued detention of the petitioner is violative of the Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the Rule is made absolute and the detention order dated 31.7.1997 is quashed. The petitioner should be set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in my other case.