Judgment:
ORDER
K. Narayana Kurup, J.
1. The detention order bearing reference G.O.SR.I/550- 5/2000 dated 1.6.2000 clamped on the detenu by the first respondent for reasons slated in grounds of detention is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, mainly on the ground of delay in disposal of representation preferred by the detenu to the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) which was routed through the Jail Superintendent.
2. The superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai forwarded a copy of representation dated 3.7.2000 of the detenu, which was admittedly received by second respondent Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 7.7.2000. Upon receipt of the aforesaid representations is addressed to the Government of Tamil Nadu only, it cannot be treated as a representation addressed to the Central Government and considered by it. Accordingly, the third respondent-Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai was requested to clarify whether the detenu wanted his representation dated 3.7.2000 to be addressed to the Central Government and considered by it vide letter dated 7.7.2000. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai vide letter dated 13.7.2000 forwarded a letter of the detenu had confirmed that ' What I have already stated in my representation dated 3.7.2000 that I want already stated in my representation dated 3.7.2000 to be sent to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi for Consideration.' After receipt of the aforesaid letter of the detenu on 17.7.2000, the second respondent -Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) called for para-wise comments from the sponsoring Authority vide letter dated 18.7.2000, followed by reminder dated 28.7.2000. The comments of the Sponsoring Authority which was forwarded vide letter dated 27.7.2000 was received in the COFEPOSA unit of the Central Government on 3.8.2000. The case file was submitted to Deputy Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 3.8.2000. The Deputy Secretary (COFEPOSA) processed the case and put up to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 4.8.2000. The Joint Secretary-cum-Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau considered the representation vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the same on 7.8.2000 and the detenu was intimated about the rejection of his representation dated 3.7.2000 vide memo dated 7.8.2000.
3. From the aforesaid narration, we find that there is unexplained delay on the part of the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) in dealing with petitioner's representation dated 3.7.2000. Admittedly, the aforesaid representation dated 3.7.2000 was received by second respondent on 7.7.2000. In the covering letter of superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai, it is expressly made clear that he is submitting the representation received from the detenu for disposal. Once the second respondent- Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) recites such a representation for consideration and disposal on 7.7.2000, in accordance with law, it will be too much and hypertechnical for him to say that since it is addressed only to the State Government, which it is not, he will not consider it. We take note of the fact it is not a mere copy of the representation preferred by detenu that has been sent to the Union of India. We find that the representation has been presented as usual accompanied by a covering letter form the Superintendent of Jail with a request for consideration and disposal. Therefore, there can be no scope for entertaining any doubt as to whether it was really intended for consideration and disposal by the Central Government on merits. From the letter of the detenu dated 13.7.2000, we find that he had intended the representation to be considered and disposed of by the Central Government, while forwarding it through the Jail authorities. There is no set format or magical incantation in which the representation is to be couched as a condition precedent for its consideration. It will be too much to expect a detenu to submit a representation dotting every 'i* and crossing every 't' therein. All that has to be seen is whether there is substantial compliance with the requirement of submitting a representation highlighting the grievance of the detenu. If such a representation is preferred by the detenu, the same will have to be considered by the competent authority notwithstanding any minor technical flaws it may suffer from. In other words, it is the substance of the representation that matters and not the salutation or address. On the facts disclosed, we are satisfied that the detenu had submitted a proper representation to the second respondent on 3.7.2000.
4. Even after receiving the letter form the Superintendent of the Jail on 17.7.2000, we find considerable delay on the part of the second respondent in dealing with matter. Though para-wise comments were called from the Sponsoring Authority on 18.7.2000, it was followed by a reminder only on 28.7.2000. First of all, as already noticed, there is no scope for addressing a letter to the Superintendent of Central Jail asking for clarification as to whether the detenu intended his representation to be considered and disposed of by the Central Government/Second respondent. Even after receiving the clarification, the attitude of the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA)- second respondent was one of lukewarm while dealing with the representation, which resulted in an inordinate delay in disposing the representation of the detenu between 7.7.2000 and 28.7.2000, namely, delay of 21 days resulting in infraction of the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt that under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 a power of revocation is vested with the Central Government, which is asupervisory power and is intended to be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of the power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government, and therefore, to retain the statutory safeguard the Central Government has to discharge its responsibility with constant vigilance and watchful care. The right to make representation is undoubtedly a constitutional right of the detenu and such a representation should be considered as expeditiously as possible and uninfluenced by any technical or fanciful doubts, as in the instant case, vide Jasbir singh v. LT. Governor, Delhi, 1999 SCC (Cri) 517.
5. Of course, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the second respondent is not bound to consider the detenu's representation till 17.7.2000 since the representation is not the one addressed to the second respondent. In other words, their contention is that till such time the detenu addresses a representation to the second respondent, the second respondent is not bound to consider the representation preferred by the detenu and forwarded to the second respondent through the Jail authorities. We fail to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the second respondent. As already noticed, the Superintendent of Jail has made an express endorsement in the covering letter that the representation is forwarded to the second respondent for his consideration. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in rejecting the aforesaid contention of the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision in Jasbir Singh case, 1999 SCC (Cri) 517 noted supra. In the aforesaid decision, it has been laid down that what is reasonable expedition will depend upon the facts of each case. The question as to whether the representation addressed to the Advisory Board should be considered by the Central Government was not considered at all in the aforesaid case, because independently a representation was sent by the detenu to the Central Government and it was disposed of by the Central Government. The factual matrix presented in the aforesaid case is entirely different.
7. In the result, we hold that the impugned order of detention and the continued incarceration of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order violates the rights of the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order of detention passed by the first respondent in reference G.O.SR.I/550-5-2000, dated 1.6.2000 is hereby quashed and the respondent are directed to set the said detenu at liberty forthwith, unless his preference is required in connection with any other case. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.