Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHYAM AMBALAL SIROYA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided
20 February 1980
Judges listed
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 1078 · 1980 INSC 31
Also cited as
  • (1980) 2 SCC 346 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KAILASAM, J. The petitioner is brother of Virendra Ambalal Siroya who was detained by an order of detention dated 31-8-1979 issued by Additional Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5-9-1979. The counsel for the detenu made an application on 17-9-1979 for supply of documents, and statements recorded and relied on in the grounds of detention. Before the documents were supplied, an incomplete representation was made by the detenu on 22-9-1979. The documents were supplied on 25-9-1979, 27-9-1979 lllld 3-10-1979. The detenu again made a second representation on 5-10-1979 and requested that the order of detention may be revoked by the Central Government.

p. 1079, margin B

Mr. A. K. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the representation requesting the Central Government to order the revocation under S. 11 of the Act was not forwarded by the_ detaining authority to the Central Government and as such the detention is illegal, In the memorandum of grounds in his writ petition at paragraph XIV the detenu submitted that he made representation to the Central Government and that the Central Government had not considered the representation at all. In paragraph XV the detenu contended that the second representation was an application for revocation under S. 11 of the Act wherein he specifically requested that the Central Government should revoke the order. The said representation was not considered by the Central Government. It was submitted that non-consideration of the representation by the Central Government vitiated the detention -0rder. In reply the detaining authority stated in paragraph 15 as follows:-

p. 1079, margin E

"It is submitted that the consideration of representation of the detenu by the detaining authority is perfectly valid and legal and in accordance with the law. It is, however, denied that merely because it was not considered by the Central Government, the detention order is vitiated in any way."

p. 1079, margin G

It is clear from the statement that the representation was not forwarded to the Central Government. The plea on behalf of the detaining authority is 'that merely because the representation was not considered by the Central Government, the detention order would not be vitiated.

p. 1080

The representation of the detenu dated 5-10-1979 is marked as Annexure 'E'. It states that it is a further representation in the matter of his detention. After setting out the various grounds, the relief asked for in paragraph 5 runs as follows :- "The petitioner prays that :

p. 1080

(a) That the order of detention be revoked by the Cen-

p. 1080, margin C

tral Government. ( b) This further representation be placed before COFEPOSA Advisory Board alongwith the earlier

p. 1080, margin C

representation. ( c) That the Ad~isory Board be pleased to repqrt to the Central Government to revoke the impugned order of

p. 1080, margin C

detention."

p. 1080, margin D

The request of the detenu is clear : He prayed for the revocation 0f the order of detention by the Central Government. It is not the case of the detaining authority that he did not understand the representation as being intended fur the Central Government. On the other hand, his plea is that the mere fact that the Central Government has not considered the representation would not vitiate the order of detention. The detaining authority is the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance and it is not d;sputed that a communication lo the Central Government can be properly addressed by sending it to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance.

p. 1080, margin D

It is admitted that th" representation was properly addressed to the Central Government. The Central Government is empowered to revoke the order of detention at any stage. It was submitted that the order of revocation by the Central Government can only be passed after the order of detention in confirmed by the detaining authority and the Advisory Board. The power conferred on the Central Government by S. 11 is wide enough to enable the Central Governnwnt to revoke the detention order at any stage for the words used · are a detention order may at any time be revoked or modified. The power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention imp ies that the detenu can make a representation for exercise of that power. Any petition for revocation of an order of detention should be dealt with reasonable expedition. In this case it is the main ground urged on behalf of the detenu that the petition of the 5th of October, 1979 was not forwarded to the Central Government and consequently no order has been passed on that petition up to date. In the course of arguments, Mr. A. K. Sen on behalf of the detenu submitted that even the earlier representation was addressed to the Central Government which was also not forwarded. We do not think that we should entertain this plea as it was not pleaded in the memorandum of grounds that the first representation was to the Central Government but made for the first time in the Court before us. In any event, it is clear that a representation properly addressed by the detenu to the Central Government was not forwarded to the Central Government und as such no action had been taken up to date. It may be permissible for the Central Government to take reasonable time for disposing any revocation petition. But it would not be justified in ignoring th_e representation for revocntion of the detention as a statutory duty is cast upon the Central Government. It is necessary that the Government should apply its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition, declining to order for revocation.

pp. 1080–1081, margin F

The question that arises for consideration is, as to what will be the consequence if a properly addressed petitioU" is not forwarded to the Central Government and as such left unattended for a period of nearly four months. We feel that in such circumstances the detention cannot be justified as being according to the procedure. In the circumstances we do not feel that we will be justified in sending the representation to the Central Government for disposal at this stage.

p. 1081, margin D

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the continued detention of the detenu cannot be held to be according to procedure. His release has already been ordered. P.B.R. Petition allowed.

p. 1081, margin E