U.P. Vs. Shakeel Ahmed  INSC 755
(28 November 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Majmudar S.B. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 337 JT 1995 (8) 561 1995 SCALE (6)732
O R D
the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through
counsel. Notice is sufficient.
respondent was detained on July 31, 1989
under Section 3  (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. When he challenged the order of
detention, the High Court in the impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in
W.P. No.2029 of 1990 set aside the order of detention on the ground that the
delay in non-consideration of the representation for one month, i.e., from
February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on the ground
that copy of the report of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to
the detenu which violates Article 22  of the Constitution. We are of the
opinion that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of
detention on these grounds. It is not mandatory that the report of the
sponsoring authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22  of
the Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. All
the material on which reliance was place for order of detention was admittedly
supplied to the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay
in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal.
these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention
order is clearly illegal.
since the period has already expired, we do not think that it is a case
warranting further detention of the respondent.
appeal is accordingly disposed of.