Smt. Gousia Begum Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/432329
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnOct-30-1989
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 12485 of 1989
JudgeYogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and ;Lakshmana Rao, J.
Reported in1992(1)ALT616
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 22(5) and 226
AppellantSmt. Gousia Begum
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB. Kumar and ;D. Panduranga, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateK. Jagannatha Rao, Sr. Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and ;Addl. Adv. General for Respondent No. 2
Excerpt:
- maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. the first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. the shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. by simmering unsalted butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. so to say, milk is converted to dahi, then butter......yogeshwar dayal, c.j. and lakshmana rao, j.1. this is a petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of sri mohd. khalid @ khaleel, 22.7.1992 iranigally, hyderabad. the detenu was detained as per the order of detention dated 30-1-89 passed by the government of india, finance ministry, and he was actually detained on 7-2-89.2. the order was passed by the joint secretary to the government of india, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. the detenu himself was apprehended at begumpet railway station while boarding a train for bombay on 23-12-88. the foreign currency valuing more than rs. 3,90,000/- was seized from the detenu. he also made a confessional statement on 24-12-88.3. a representation was made on behalf of the.....
Judgment:

Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This is a petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Sri Mohd. Khalid @ Khaleel, 22.7.1992 Iranigally, Hyderabad. The detenu was detained as per the order of detention dated 30-1-89 passed by the Government of India, Finance Ministry, and he was actually detained on 7-2-89.

2. The order was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The detenu himself was apprehended at Begumpet Railway Station while boarding a train for Bombay on 23-12-88. The foreign currency valuing more than Rs. 3,90,000/- was seized from the detenu. He also made a confessional statement on 24-12-88.

3. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu by his wife on 22-6-89 in Urdu, which was received by the 1st respondent on 23-6-89 and the representation was rejected only on 8-8-89. It was pleaded on behalf of the detenu that there was inordinate delay in consideration of the representation which amounted to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent in paragraph 4(g) it is admitted that the representation was received as alleged, but the representation along with English Translation was received in COFEPOSA section of the Finance Ministry on 27-7-89 and it was put up with relevant file to the Under Secretary on 31-7-89 since 29-7-89 and 30-7-89 were holidays. The representation was examined and put up with a detailed note by the Under Secretary on 1-8-89 to the Joint Secretary and ultimately the Finance Minister rejected it on 5-8-89 and the file was received back on 8-8-89. It may be noticed that there is inordinate delay in the consideration itself of the representation, inasmuch as the representation was received on 23-6-89 and was sent to the department concerned. But it was considered with undue delay. The delay from 23-6-89 to 27-7-89 is totally unexplained. The representation was sent only on 27-7-89 to COFEPOSA section. There is no explanation for the same. In these circumstances we are constrained to hold that this order of continued detention of the detenu is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. A reference in this connection may be made to a decision reported in Aslam Ahmed Zahire Shaik v. Union of India, : 1989CriLJ1447 , where there was only unexplained delay of 7 days by the Jail Superintendent in forwarding the representation and consequent delay of 11 days in its disposal by the Government, and it was held to be rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and constitutionally impermissible.

4. For the foregoing reasons we allow the writ petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. No costs.