Pramod Tukaram Pawar ] v. The State of Maharashtra ]
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- COFEPOSA Act, 1974 s. 3(1)
Judgment
Cause title
CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND
CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND
CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MAY 4,2006 DATE : MAY 4,2006 DATE : MAY 4,2006
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.):
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.):
Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of detention dated 13th March, 2002 passed by Respondent No.2 against the detenu i.e. Parvez Mazhar Hasan @ Parvez Hasan Shaikh. By the said order, the detenu came to be detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
We have heard Mr.Maqsood Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although, in this writ petition, many grounds have been pleaded, Mr.Maqsood Khan has pressed only one ground before us i.e. ground No.(vi). The said ground briefly stated is that "the petitioner had preferred a representation dated 8.7.2005 and it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to dispose of the said representation expeditiously". The said ground has been replied in para no.6 of the [- 3 -] affidavit dated 28th December, 2005 by Mr.Borade, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. In the said affidavit, it is stated that representation dated 8.7.2005 was received on 4.8.2005. Parawise comments on the said representation were called from the sponsoring authority on the same day and it was received on
11.8.2005 late in the evening. Thereafter, concerned Assistant prepared detailed note on
29.8.2005. It is further stated that there were seven days holidays during the said period.
Mr.Maqsood Khan has contended that this period from 11.8.2005 to 29.8.2005 i.e. 19 days was unexplained. Even excluding the period of seven days which were holidays, about 12 days remained to be explained.
In reply thereto, Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. has stated that further details have been furnished in relation to delay between
11.8.2005 to 29.8.2005 in the affidavit by Mr. Sharad Pawaskar, Under Secretary to the Home Department. We have perused the said affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that on account [- 4 -] of unprecedented rains in Mumbai on 26.7.2005 onwards the concerned Assistant could not attend the office till 17.8.2005 on account of disruption of train services and other difficulties on account of unprecedented rains. As far as period from
11.8.2005 to 17.8.2005 is concerned, we find that the said period would have to be excluded from consideration as the delay caused during this period was not on account of any negligence or callous inaction. There were unprecedented rains and the situation in the city was seriously disturbed during that period. Hence, the period from 11.8.2005 to 17.8.2005 would have to be excluded.
So far as the delay in disposal of the representation, no hard and fast rule as to measure all reasonable time can be laid down and each case has to be considered on the basis of facts presented in the said case. Only when the delay is caused due to negligence or callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism, wanton laches, it would warrant interference. The Supreme Court in the Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan Vs. Union of case of Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan Vs. Union of Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan Vs. Union of
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
COFEPOSA Act, 1974 — s. 3(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.