 original jurisdiction writ petition  crl.  number 1323
of 1979.  under article 32 of the companystitution.  ram jethamalani and harjinder singh and m. m. lodha for
the petitioner. r. lalit a. v. rangam and m. n. shroff for the
respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
kailasam j.-the petitioner ramchandra a. kamat has
preferred this petition under art. 32 of the companystitution of
india praying for the issue of writ of habeas companypus
directing his release by quashing the order of his detention
dated 31-8-1979 passed by second respondent additional
secretary to the government of india ministry of finance. the petitioner was directed to be detained by an order
dated 31st august 1979 under s. 3 1  of the companyservation of
foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act
1974. in pursuance of the order the petitioner was arrested
on 5-9-1979. he was served with the grounds of detention on
the same day. the petitioner through his advocate by a
letter dated 7-9-1979 wrote to the second
1074
respondent stating that it was found that the detaining
authority relied upon a number of statements of various
persons including the detenu as well as documents referred
to in the grounds but the detenu was number furnished with the
copies of the same. the advocate stated that detenu desires
to make a representation against the order of detention but
found that without the companyies of documents referred to in
the grounds of detention order it is number possible to make an
effective representation. a reply to his letter was sent to
the advocate by mr. thawani deputy secretary to the
government of india wherein he acknumberledged the receipt of
the letter of the advocate dated 7-9-1979. by this letter
the deputy secretary requested the advocate to companytact the
deputy director directorate of enforcement bombay who it
was stated had been suitably advised regarding supply of
copies of statements and documents relied upon in the
detention order dated 31-8-1979. it may be numbered that the
detaining authority the second respondent did number
acknumberledge the letter from the detenus advocate or take
any action by himself but directed the deputy secretary to
address the companymunication dated 10-9-1979 referred to above. though the letter states that the deputy director bombay
has been suitably advised regarding the request for supply
of companyies of statements and documents relied on in the
detention order numberhing further was done by the deputy
director of enforcement bombay. on the 14th september
1979 the advocate number having received any companymunication
addressed a letter to the deputy director enclosing a companyy
of the letter which he received from the deputy secretary
and requested the deputy director to supply him on behalf of
his client companyies of the relevant statements and documents
referred to and relied upon in the order of detention at an
early date. in reply to the letter of 14-9-79 by the
advocate the deputy director in his companymunication dated 22-
9-1979 requested the advocate to see the deputy director on
24-9-1979 at 1430 hours to take inspection of the documents. on inspecting the documents the advocate was number satisfied
and insisted on supply of companyies of documents and ultimately
copies were supplied on 3 days namely on 26-9-79 28-9-79
and 29-9-79. the representation was made by the detenu on 5-
10-79.
it is settled law that the appropriate authority is
bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make
representation and to companysider the representation of the
detenu as early as possible. there should number be any delay
in the matter of companysideration. the companystitutional bench of this companyrt in jayanarayan
sukul v. state of west bengal 1  has held that the
fundamental right of the detenu to have representation
considered by the appropriate govern-
1075
ment will render meaningless if the government will number deal
with the matter expeditiously. the companyrt observed
it is established beyond any measure of doubt
that the appropriate authority is bound to companysider the
representation of the detenu as early as possible. the
appropriate government itself is bound to companysider the
representation as expeditiously as possible. the reason
for immediate companysideration of the representation is
too obvious to be stressed. the personal liberty of a
person is at stake. any delay would number only be an
irresponsible act on the part of the appropriate
authority but also unconstitutional because the
constitution enshrines the fundamental right of a
detenu to have his representation companysidered and it is
imperative that when the liberty of a person is in
peril immediate action should be taken by the relevant
authorities. the same view has been expressed by this companyrt in a
number of cases vide seervais companystitutional law of india
vol. i page 542 paragraph 12.82.
the right to make a representation is a fundamental
right. the representation thus made should be companysidered
expeditiously by the government. in order to make an
effective representation the detenu is entitled to obtain
information relating to the grounds of detention. when the
grounds of detention are served on the detenu he is
entitled to ask for companyies of the statements and documents
referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to
make an effective representation. when the detenu makes a
request for such documents they should be supplied to him
expeditiously. the detaining authority in preparing the
grounds would have referred to the statements and documents
relied on in the grounds of detention and would be
ordinarily available with him-when companyies of such documents
are asked for by the detenu the detaining authority should
be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition. what is reasonable expedition will depend on the facts of
each case. it is alleged by the detenu that there had been
unreasonable delay in furnishing of the statements and
documents referred to in the grounds of detention. it is the
duty of the detaining authority to satisfactorily explain
the delay if any in furnishing of these documents. we are
in this companytext number referring to the statements and
documents number referred to in the grounds of detention for it
may be that they are number in the possession of the detaining
authority and that reasonable time may be required for
furnishing companyies of the relevant documents which may number
be in his possession. 1076
if there is undue delay in furnishing the statements
and documents referred to in the grounds of detention the
right to make effective representation is denied. the
detention cannumber be said to be according to the procedure
prescribed by law. when the act companytemplates the furnishing
of grounds of detention ordinarily within five days of the
order to detention the intention is clear that the
statements and documents which are referred to in the
grounds of detention and which are required by the detenu
and are expected to be in possession of the detaining
authority should be furnished with reasonable expedition. it will have to be companysidered on the facts of the case
whether there was any unexplained delay in furnishing the
statements and documents relied on in the grounds of
detention. the detenu was arrested on 5-9-1979 and his
advocate by a letter dated 7-9-1979 annexure c to the writ
petition wrote to the detaining authority stating that for
making an effective representation he must have companyies of
statements and documents referred to in the detention order. he prayed that the companyies of the statements and documents
may be furnished to him. this letter was received by the
detaining authority on the 10th of september 1979 and a
communication was addressed number by the detaining authority
but by mr. thawani deputy secretary on the same date. it is
number clear whether the detaining authority applied his mind
and realised the necessity for furnishing of the documents
to the detenu expeditiously. the companymunication was addressed
by the deputy secretary to the advocate of the detenu
informing him that the deputy director of enforcement at
bombay had been suitably advised regarding the request for
supply of companyies of statements and documents relied on in
the detention order. one would have expected that the
detaining authority or the deputy secretary acting on his
behalf to have directed the deputy director of enforcement
bombay to furnish the necessary documents expeditiously to
the advocate as requested or to the detenu himself. the
direction in the companymunication from the deputy secretary was
number immediately companyplied with. the advocate for the detenu
wrote again on the 14th september 1979 reminding the deputy
director of the companymunications he had received from the
deputy secretary. the advocate requested that the companyies of
the relevant statements and documents referred to and relied
upon in the detention order may be supplied to him. this
letter was replied by the deputy director on the 22nd
september 1979 in which the advocate was asked to have
inspection of the documents in his premises between 1430
hours on 24-9-1979. the companyies of the statements and
documents requested by the advocate for the detenu and
directed by the deputy secretary to be furnished to the
advocate were number furnished to him instead the deputy
director asked the advocate to
1077
have inspection at the deputy directors office. after
inspecting the documents on 22/24/25-9-1979 he insisted of
having companyies which were supplied on the 26th 27th and 28th
of september 1979.
the explanation given by the detaining authority
regarding the delay in furnishing companyies as seen in his
counter affidavit is that the companystitutional right of the
petitioner to make effective representation had number been
infringed. according to the detaining authority it was number
incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply companyies of
all the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention to
the petitioner alongwith the grounds within 5 days of
detention as petitioner has companytended. in this companytext it
would be relevant to state that the grounds were
sufficiently detailed so as to enable the petitioner to make
an effective representation against the detention. he
further stated that all steps were taken to companyply as
expeditiously as possible. it may number be necessary for the
detaining authority to supply companyies of all the documents
relied upon in the grounds of detention at the time when the
grounds are furnished to the detenu but once the detenu
states that for effective representation it is necessary
that he should have companyies of the statements and documents
referred to in the grounds of detention it is the duty of
the detaining authority to furnish them with reasonable
expedition. the detaining authority cannumber decline to
furnish companyies of the documents on the ground that the
grounds were sufficiently detailed to enable the petitioner
to make an effective representation. in this case the
detaining authority should have taken reasonable steps to
provide the detenu or his advocate with the statements and
documents as early as possible. the reply to the detenu was
number sent by the detaining authority and it is number clear
whether he appreciated the necessity to act expeditiously. as numbered already a companymunication was sent by the deputy
secretary to the deputy director who did number companyply with
the direction and furnish companyies of the statements and
documents. after a lapse of 12 days i.e. on 22-9-1979 the
deputy director offered inspection. taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case and explanation furnished by the detaining authority
we are of the view that the detaining authority failed to
act with reasonable expedition in furnishing the statements
and documents referred to in the grounds of detention.