The use of word ‘as soon as may be’ is important in order to make effective communication against arrest/detention: Read Judgment Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Sat, Jun 22, 2019, at ,12:24 AM Title of the Case – The use of word ‘as soon as may be’ is important in order to make effective communication against arrest/detention Name of the case – Arbaj @Baban Iqbal Shaikh vs. The Commissioner of Police., Crl.A. No. 45 of 2019 (Allahabad High Court) Date of Judgment – 19th June, 2019 Judges: Justice A.M. Badar and Justice Indrajit Mahanty Subject and sections involved – Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India Issue: Whether the detention of the detenue is justified? Fact of the Case: Arbaj@ Baban was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981. The representation of the detenu is submitted the State Government on 18.12.2018 for expeditious consideration and to revoke the order of detention as well as to furnish certain vital documents to the detenu for making effective representation. the detenu nor his Advocate has received any communication as regards the consideration of the said representation of the detenu, thereby the said authority has delayed in considering the representation of the detenu. The State Government is called upon to explain the said delay, if any, to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court, failing which the continued detention will be held as illegal and bad in law. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside. Ratio of the case - The Court observed that the detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. True, there is no prescribed period either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the concerned detention law within which the representation should be dealt with. The use of the word "as soon as may be" occurring in Article 22(5) of the Constitution reflects that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. What is reasonable dispatch depends on the facts and circumstances or' each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. However, in case the gap between the receipt of the representation and its consideration by the authority is so unreasonably long and the explanation offered by the authority is so unsatisfactory, such delay could vitiate the order of detention. The division bench of Allahabad High Court relying upon the judgment of Harish Pahwa vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 AIR 1126, mentioned that the manner in which the representation made by the appellant has been dealt with reveals a sorry state of affairs in the matter of consideration of representations made by persons detained without trial. There is no explanation at all as to why no action was taken in reference to the representation on 4th, 5th and 25th of June, 1980. It is also not clear what consideration was given by the Government to the representation from 13th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980 when we find that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department, nor it is apparent why the Law Department had to be consulted at all. Again, we fail to understand why the representation had to travel from table to table for six days before reaching the Chief Minister who was the only authority to decide the representation. We may make it clear, as we have done on numerous earlier occasions, that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Ultimately, the question is of opportunity to a citizen and such matters need to be handled with due caution and sensitivity. Undue delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner/detenu vitiates the order of detention. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.