{"id":77304,"date":"1980-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980"},"modified":"2015-08-14T17:26:32","modified_gmt":"2015-08-14T11:56:32","slug":"frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","title":{"rendered":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 849, \t\t 1980 SCR (2)1095<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFRANCES CORALIE MULLIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nW. C. KHAMBRA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/02\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  849\t\t  1980 SCR  (2)1095\n 1980 SCC  (2) 275\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1981 SC 510\t (10,11)\n RF\t    1981 SC 746\t (1)\n R\t    1981 SC1077\t (1)\n R\t    1981 SC1191\t (7)\n R\t    1981 SC2166\t (15)\n R\t    1984 SC 802\t (10)\n R\t    1985 SC1082\t (10)\n R\t    1989 SC1861\t (18)\n RF\t    1990 SC 231\t (16)\n R\t    1990 SC1455\t (14)\n F\t    1991 SC 574\t (12,16)\n RF\t    1991 SC2261\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of India 1950, Art 22(5) & Conservation of\nForeign Exchange  and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act\n1974, section  3-Detenu's representation  against  order  of\ndetention-Disposal  of\t such  representation  by  detaining\nauthority-Necessity  for   slightest  departure\t  from\ttime\nimperative-Detaining authority-To explain.\n     Pleadings-Affidavits  in\tcases\tinvolving   personal\nfreedom-Precision, perspicuity and clarity-Necessity for.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioner  was served on November 23, 1979 with an\norder  of   detention  under  the  Conservation\t of  Foreign\nExchange and  Prevention of  Smuggling Activities  Act 1974,\nand the\t grounds of detention were also served on the detenu\non the\tsame day. On December 1st, 1979, the advocate of the\ndetenu requested  for copies of the statements and documents\nupon which  reliance was  placed in the grounds of detention\nand   at   the\t instance   of\t the   detaining   authority\n(Administrator, Union  Territory of  Delhi), the Directorate\nof Revenue  Intelligence  furnished  the  copies  sought  on\nDecember 7,  1979. On  December 22,  1979, the detenu made a\nrepresentation to the detaining authority which was actually\nreceived by  the latter\t on December 26, 1979. A copy of the\nrepresentation was  forwarded to the Customs authorities for\ntheir remarks  which were  received on\tJanuary 4, 1980. The\nrepresentation was thereafter considered and rejected by the\ndetaining authority  on January\t 15, 1980.  The rejection of\nthe representation was communicated to the detenu on January\n17, 1980.\n     In the  meanwhile,\t the  Advisory\tBoard  to  whom\t the\ndetention had  been referred  met on  January 4,  1980,\t and\nconsidered the\tmatter. The  detenu was\t produced before the\nAdvisory Board and the concerned departmental officials were\nalso present.  On  January  10,\t 1980,\tthe  Advisory  Board\nrecorded its opinion and forwarded the same to the detaining\nauthority,  which   recommendation  was\t placed\t before\t the\nAdministrator  on  January  19,\t 1980,\twhen  the  detaining\nauthority confirmed the order of detention.\n     In the  writ petition under Article 32 it was contended\non behalf  of the  petitioner (1) that the representation of\nthe detenu  made on  December 22, 1979, was not communicated\nto the\tAdvisory Board\tas it  ought to\t have been  when the\nboard met  on  January\t4,  1980,  (2)\tthat  the  detaining\nauthority should  have disposed of the representation before\nforwarding  it\tto  the\t Advisory  Board  and  even  if\t the\ndetaining authority  did forward  it to\t the Advisory Board,\nthe detaining  authority should not have awaited the hearing\nbefore the Advisory Board and should not have allowed itself\nto be  influenced by  such hearing,  and (3)  that there was\ninexcusable  delay   in\t enabling   the\t detenu\t to  make  a\nrepresentation and in disposing of such representation.\n     Dismissing the writ petition,\n^\n     HELD  :   1.  The\trepresentation\tof  the\t detenu\t was\nforwarded to  the Advisory  Board and it was also considered\nby the latter. [1098H]\n1096\n     2. On  an examination  of the  records it is found that\nthough the  Administrator considered  the representation  of\nthe detenu after the hearing by the Board, the Administrator\nwas entirely  uninfluenced by  the hearing before the Board.\n[1104B]\n     3. If  there appeared  to be  any delay in disposing of\nthe representation  of the detenu it was not due to any want\nof care\t but because  the representation  required  thorough\nexamination in\tconsultation with investigators of facts and\nadvisers on law. [1104A]\n     In the  instant  case,  the  petitioner's\trequest\t for\ncopies of  statements and  documents  was  received  by\t the\ndetaining authority  on December 3, 1979 and at the instance\nof  the\t  detaining  authority,\t  the  Director\t of  Revenue\nIntelligence furnished\tthe copies  sought  on\tDecember  7,\n1979.  The  detenu's  representation  was  received  by\t the\ndetaining authority  on December  26, 1979. Without any loss\nof time,  copy of the representation was sent to the Customs\nauthorities for\t their remarks.\t This was  necessary because\nthe information\t leading to  the order of detention was laid\nby the\tCustoms authorities and the facts were complex since\nthe allegations\t against the  detenu revealed an involvement\nwith an\t international gang  of dope smugglers. The comments\nof the Customs authorities were received on January 4, 1980.\nThe Advisory  Board was\t meeting on  the same  day and there\ncould be  no question of the detaining authority considering\nthe representation of the detenu before the Board met. After\nobtaining comments  of the  Customs authorities it was found\nnecessary to  take legal  advice as the representation posed\nmany  legal  and  constitutional  questions.  The  same\t was\nobtained and  the representation was finally rejected by the\nAdministrator on January 15, 1980. [1103D-H]\n     4. The  role  of  the  court  in  cases  of  preventive\ndetention has  to be one of eternal vigilance. No freedom is\nhigher than  personal freedom  and no  duty higher  than  to\nmaintain it  unimpaired. The  Court's writ  is the  ultimate\ninsurances  against   illegal  detention.  The\tConstitution\nenjoins conformance  with the  provisions of  Article 22 and\nthe Court  exacts compliance.  Article 22(5)  vests  in\t the\ndetenu the  right to be provided with an opportunity to make\na representation. [1100F]\n     5. The Law Reports tell a story and teach a lesson that\nthe principal  enemy of\t the detenu  and his right to make a\nrepresentation\tis   neither   high-handedness\t nor   mean-\nmindedness but\tthe casual  indifference, the  mindless\t in-\nsensibility the routine and the red-tape of the bureaucratic\nmachine. [1100G]\n     6. The  four principles  to be  followed in  regard  to\nrepresentation\tof   detenu  enunciated\t  by  the  Court  in\nJayanarayan Sukul  v. State  of West  Bengal<\/a> [1970] 3 S.C.R.\n225 as\twell as\t other principles enunciated in other cases,\nan analysis  will show,\t are  aimed  at\t shielding  personal\nfreedom against\t indifference,\tinsensibility,\troutine\t and\nred-tape and  thus to secure to the detenu the right to make\nan effective representation. [1100H]\n     Narendra Purshotam\t Umrao etc.  v. B. B. Gujral & Ors.,\n[1979] 2  S.C.R. 315; Ramachandra A. Kamat v. Union of India\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
State of  West Bengal,\t[1972] 1 S.C.C. 498 @ 504; Prabhakar
\nShankar Dhuri  v.  S.  S.  Pradhan,<\/a>  [1971]  3\tS.C.C.\t896;
\nKantilal Bose  v. State\t of West Bengal, AIR 1972 S.C. 1623,
\nreferred to.\n<\/p>\n
1097<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.\t The   time-imperative\tcan  never  be\tabsolute  or
\nobsessive.  There  has\tto  be\tlee-way,  depending  on\t the
\nnecessities of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     8.\t Several   situations  may   arise  compelling\t the
\ndeparture from\tthe time-imperative. But no allowance can be
\nmade for  lethargic indifference.  No allowance\t can be made
\nfor needless  procrastination. But, allowance must surely be
\nmade for  necessary consultation where legal intricacies and
\nfactual ramifications are involved. The burden of explaining
\nthe necessity  for the\tslightest departure  from  the\ttime
\nimperative is on the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
     9. There should be greater precision and perspicuity in
\naffidavits  filed   into  Court.   Care\t and   clearity\t are
\nparticularly important\twhen the  court\t is  concerned\twith
\nquestions of personal freedom.\n<\/p>\n
&
\n     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1524 of 1979.
\n     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution).\n<\/p>\n
     Ram Jethmalani,  Harjinder Singh, Sunil Mehta and Mukul
\nMudgal for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     M.\t M.   Abdul  Khader   and  M.\tN.  Shroff  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. Mrs.\tFrances\t Coralie  Mullin,  a
\nBritish National  was served  on November  23, 1979, with an
\norder  of   detention  under  the  Conservation\t of  Foreign
\nExchange and  Prevention of  Smuggling Activities  Act.\t The
\ngrounds of  detention were  also served\t on her\t on the same
\nday. On\t December 1,  1979, her\t Advocate sent a telegram to
\nthe detaining  authority, namely,  the Administrator,  Union
\nTerritory of  Delhi, asking  for copies\t of  statements\t and
\ndocuments upon\twhich reliance\twas placed in the grounds of
\ndetention.  The\t telegram  was\treceived  by  the  detaining
\nauthority on  December 3,  1979.  The  Director\t of  Revenue
\nIntelligence who  was directed\tby the\tAdministrator, Union
\nTerritory of  Delhi, to\t supply\t copies\t of  statements\t and
\ndocuments to  the detenu,  so supplied\tthem on\t December 7,
\n1979. Seventeen documents were mentioned in the accompanying
\nletter. Alleging that one of the documents (item No. 14) was
\nnot sent,  the Advocate wrote a letter by Registered post on
\nDecember 17,  1979, asking for a copy of that document also.
\nA reply\t was sent  on January  1, 1980,\t to the\t effect that
\ndocument  No.\t14  had\t  also\tbeen  supplied\tearlier\t but
\nnonetheless another copy of the same document was being sent
\nagain.\tOn   December  22,   1979,   the   detenu   made   a
\nrepresentation\tto   the  detaining  authority\tand  it\t was
\nactually received  by the  latter on  December 26, 1979. The
\nHome Department of the Delhi Administration forwarded a copy
\nof
\n1098<\/span>
\nthe representation  to the  Customs  authorities  for  their
\nremarks. The  remarks were  received  on  January  4,  1980.
\nThereafter the representation was considered and rejected by
\nthe Administrator  on January 15, 1980. The rejection of the
\nrepresentation was communicated to the detenu on January 17,
\n1980. In  the meanwhile\t the  Advisory\tBoard  to  whom\t the
\ndetention of the petitioner had been referred met on January
\n4, 1980\t and considered\t the matter. The detenu was produced
\nbefore the Advisory Board and various concerned Departmental
\nofficials were\talso  present.\tOn  January  10,  1980,\t the
\nAdvisory Board\trecorded its  opinion and forwarded the same
\nto the\tdetaining authority.  It was  received by  the\tHome
\nDepartment of  the Delhi  Administration on January 11, 1980
\nbut was\t actually placed before the Administrator on January
\n19, 1980 when the detaining authority confirmed the order of
\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  application for  the issue of a writ of Habeas
\nCorpus three  submissions were\tmade by Shri Ram Jethmalani,
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner :\n<\/p>\n
     1. The  representation of\tthe detenu, made on December
\n22, 1979,  was not  communicated to the Advisory Board as it
\nought to have been, when the Board met on January 4,1980.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  detaining authority should have disposed of the
\nrepresentation before  forwarding it  to the Advisory Board.
\nEven if\t the detaining\tauthority  did\tforward\t it  to\t the
\nAdvisory Board,\t the detaining\tauthority  should  not\thave
\nawaited the hearing before the Advisory Board and should not
\nhave allowed itself to be influenced by such hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     3. There  was inexcusable\tdelay in enabling the detenu
\nto  make   a   representation\tand   indisposing   of\t the
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
     Notwithstanding the  clear assertion  in the additional
\ngrounds raised\tby the\tpetitioner, which she was allowed to
\ndo by  an order\t of the Court, that her representation dated
\nDecember 22,  1979, was not placed before the Advisory Board
\nwhen the Board met on January 4, 1980, there was no specific
\ndenial of  the assertion  in the  counter filed by the Delhi
\nAdministration to  the additional  grounds. However, we were
\ninformed by Shri Abdul Khader, learned Counsel for the Delhi
\nAdministration,\t that\tthe  representation   was  in\tfact
\nforwarded to  the Advisory  Board and also considered by the
\nlatter. He  produced the  relevant files  before us which we
\nalso permitted\tShri Jethmalani to inspect. We are satisfied
\nthat the  representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board
\nand it was also considered by the
\n1099<\/span>
\nlatter.\t There\t is,  therefore,   no  force  in  the  first
\nsubmission made\t on behalf  of the  petitioner. We  wish  to
\nrepeat here,  what we  have said  on earlier occasions, that
\nthere  should\tbe  greater  precision\tand  perspicuity  in
\naffidavits  filed   into  Court.   Care\t and   clarity\t are
\nparticularly important\twhen the  Court\t is  concerned\twith
\nquestions of personal freedom.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t support   of  the  second  and\t third\tsubmissions,
\nreliance  was\tplaced\tby   the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioner on the four principles laid down by this Court in
\nJayanarayan Sukul  v. State  of West  Bengal,<\/a>(1) and  on the
\nobservations of\t the Court in Nareendra Purshotam Umrao etc.
\nv. B.  B. Gujaral & Ors.(2) and Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union
\nof India  & Ors.<\/a>(3).  In the first case a Constitution bench
\nof the\tCourt laid down four broad principles to be followed
\nin regard to representation of detenus :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “First, the appropriate authority is bound to give
\n     an opportunity  to the  detenu to make a representation
\n     and to  consider the  representation of  the detenu  as
\n     early as  possible. Secondly,  the consideration of the
\n     representation  of\t  the  detenu\tby  the\t appropriate
\n     authority is  entirely independent of any action by the
\n     Advisory  Board  including\t the  consideration  of\t the
\n     representation of\tthe detenu  by the  Advisory  Board.
\n     Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the matter of
\n     consideration. It\tis true\t that no  hard and fast rule
\n     can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the
\n     appropriate authority  for consideration  but it has to
\n     be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in
\n     the governance  of\t the  citizens.\t A  citizen’s  right
\n     raises a  correlative duty\t of the State. Fourthly, the
\n     appropriate Government  is to  exercise its opinion and
\n     judgment on  the representation before sending the case
\n     along with\t the detenu’s representation to the Advisory
\n     Board. If\tthe appropriate\t Government will release the
\n     detenu the\t Government will  not send the matter to the
\n     Advisory Board.  If, however,  the Government  will not
\n     release the  detenu the  Government will  send the case
\n     alongwith the  detenu’s representation  to the Advisory
\n     Board. If thereafter the Advisory Board will express an
\n     opinion  in   favour  of  release\tof  the\t detenu\t the
\n     Government will release the detenu. If the Advisory
\n1100<\/span>
\n     Board will\t express any  opinion against the release of
\n     the detenu\t the Government may still exercise the power
\n     to release the detenu.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the\tsecond case,  to the  facts of\twhich we  will refer
\nlater, the  observations upon which reliance was placed were
\n:  “It\t is  urged   that  the\t Government  was   under   a
\nconstitutional obligation  to consider\tthe  representations
\nbefore the  hearing before  the Advisory  Board. There is no
\nquarrel with  the principle  but the difficulty is about the
\napplication of\tthe principle  on the facts an circumstances
\nof the\tpresent case.  In fact,\t the Government has to reach
\nits decision  uninfluenced by  the opinion  of the  Advisory
\nBoard.” In  the third case, offer of inspection of documents
\ntwelve days after request for copies was considered fatal to
\nthe detention and it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If  there   is  undue  delay\t in  furnishing\t the
\n     statements and  documents referred to in the grounds of
\n     detention the right to make effective representation is
\n     denied. The detention cannot be said to be according to
\n     the  procedure   prescribed  by   law.  When   the\t Act
\n     contemplates the  furnishing of  grounds  of  detention
\n     ordinarily within\tfive days  of the order of detention
\n     the  intention   is  clear\t  that\tthe  statements\t and
\n     documents which  are referred  to\tin  the\t grounds  of
\n     detention and  which are required by the detenu and are
\n     expected to be in possession of the detaining authority
\n     should be furnished with reasonable expedition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have  no doubt\tin our\tminds about  the role of the
\nCourt in cases of preventive detention : it has to be one of
\neternal\t vigilance.  No\t freedom  is  higher  than  personal
\nfreedom and  no duty  higher than to maintain it unimpaired.
\nThe Court’s  writ is  the ultimate insurance against illegal
\ndetention. The\tConstitution enjoins  conformance  with\t the
\nprovisions of  Article 22  and the  Court exacts compliance.
\nArt. 22(5) vests in the detenu the right to be provided with
\nan opportunity to make a represntation. Here the Law Reports
\ntell a\tstory and  teach a  lesson. It is that the principal
\nenemy of  the detenu  and his right to make a representation
\nis  neither  high-handedness  nor  mean-mindedness  but\t the
\ncasual\tindifference,\tthe  mindless\tin-sensibility,\t the
\nroutine and  the red-tape  of the  bureaucratic machine. The
\nfour principles enunciated by the Court in Jayanarayan Sukul
\nv. State  of West Bengal<\/a> (supra) as well as other principles
\nenunciated in  other cases, an analysis will show, are aimed
\nat  shielding\tpersonal   freedom   against   indifference,
\ninsensibility, routine\tand red-tape  and thus\tto secure to
\nthe detenu the right to make an effective representation. We
\nagree : (1) the detaining authority must provide the
\n1101<\/span>
\ndetenu a  very early  opportunity to  make a representation,
\n(2) the detaining authority must consider the representation
\nas soon\t as possible,  and this,  preferably, must be before
\nthe representation  is forwarded  to the Advisory Board, (3)
\nthe representation  must be  forwarded to the Advisory Board
\nbefore the Board makes its report, and (4) the consideration
\nby the\tdetaining authority  of the  representation must  be
\nentirely independent  of the  hearing by  the Board  or\t its
\nreport, expedition  being  essential  at  every\t stage.\t We,
\nhowever, hasten to add that the time-imperative can never be
\nabsolute or  obsessive. The  Court’s observations are not to
\nbe so  understood. There has to be lee-way, depending on the
\nnecessities (we refrain from using the word `circumstances’)
\nof the\tcase. One  may well  imagine, a\t case where a detenu
\ndoes not  make a  representation before\t the Board makes its
\nreport making  it impossible  for  the\tdetaining  authority
\neither to  consider it or to forward it to the Board in time
\nor a  case where  a detenu  makes a  representation  to\t the
\ndetaining authority  so shortly\t before the  Advisory  Board
\ntakes up  the reference\t that the detaining authority cannot
\nconsider the  representation  before  then  but\t may  merely
\nforward it  to the  Board without  himself  considering\t it.
\nSeveral such  situations may arise compelling departure from
\nthe time-imperative.  But  no  allowance  can  be  made\t for
\nlethargic  indifference.   No  allowance  can  be  made\t for
\nneedless procrastination. But, allowance must surely be made
\nfor  necessary\tconsultation  where  legal  intricacies\t and
\nfactual ramifications are involved. The burden of explaining
\nthe necessity  for the\tslightest departure  from the  time-
\nimperative is on the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
     We notice\tthat in Narendra Purshotam Umarao etc. v. B.
\nB. Gujral  & Ors. (supra) the detenu made his representation
\non 4th\tand 6th\t of March  1978, the  Advisory Board  gave a
\nhearing on  13th March\tand the detaining authority rejected
\nthe representation  on 18th  March. The\t Court\tperused\t the
\nrecords\t of  the  Government  and  the\tAdvisory  Board\t and
\nconcluded that there was no infraction of the Constitutional
\nsafeguard in  Art. 22(5). It was held, with reference to the
\nrecords,  that\t the  Government   had\ttaken\ta   decision
\nuninfluenced by\t what transpired  at the  hearing before the
\nBoard. The  matter was\tfound to have been dealt with by the
\ngovernment at  all levels  and the  detaining authority\t had
\ncome to an independent conclusion of his own by applying his
\nmind to the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  already expressed\t our agreement with the four
\nprinciples enunciated  in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West
\nBengal<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p>\n
1102<\/span><\/p>\n
We would  make one  observation. When it was said there that
\nthe  Government\t  should  come\t to  its   decision  on\t the
\nrepresentation\t before\t  the\tGovernment   forwarded\t the
\nrepresentation to  the Advisory\t Board, the emphasis was not
\non the\tpoint of  time\tbut  on\t the  requirement  that\t the
\nGovernment should  consider the representation independently
\nof the\tBoard. This was explained in Nagendra Nath Mondal v.
\nthe State  of West  Bengal(1). In  Sukul’s case\t (supra) the
\nCourt also  made certain  pertinent observations  (at  pages
\n231-232) :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “No definite\ttime can be laid down within which a
\n     representation of\ta detenu  should be  dealt with save
\n     and except\t that it  is a\tconstitutional\tright  of  a
\n     detenu  to\t  have\this   representation  considered  as
\n     expeditiously as  possible. It  will  depend  upon\t the
\n     facts  and\t circumstances\tof  each  case\twhether\t the
\n     appropriate Government  has disposed  of  the  case  as
\n     expeditiously as possible……………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Prabhakar  Shankar Dhuri  v. S.\t S.  Pradhan<\/a>(2)\t and
\nKantilal Bose  v. State\t of West  Bengal(3) delay of 16 days
\nand 28\tdays respectively in disposing of the representation
\nof the\tdetenu was  considered\tsufficient  to\tvitiate\t the
\ndetention. On the other hand, in Nagendra Nath Mondal v. The
\nState of  West Bengal,<\/a>(1) a delay of 34 days was held not to
\naffect the  validity of\t the detention\tas part of the delay
\nwas explained  by the  circumstance that  the records of the
\ncase had  been sent  to the  Advisory Board  and part of the
\ndelay was  explained by\t the enquiries\twhich the Government
\nhad to make. The Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That fact  is not  disputed before us and so also
\n     the fact  that those  records showed  that on  June  7,
\n     1971, Government  had sent the files in connection with
\n     the petitioner’s  case and\t his representation  to\t the
\n     Advisory Board.  As  soon\tas  the\t representation\t was
\n     returned to  it, Government  considered it and rejected
\n     it but  that was  before the  Board made its report and
\n     sent it to Government. But counsel urged that this fact
\n     may explain  the lapse  of time  from the date that the
\n     records were sent and the date when they were returned,
\n     but not  the delay\t between May  27, 1971\tand June  7,
\n     1971, during which Government could have arrived at its
\n     decision. That  argument has not much force, because in
\n     a given case Government may not be able to
\n1103<\/span>
\n     reach  a\tproper\tconclusion   within  a\t short\ttime
\n     especially, in  a case where another authority, in this
\n     case the District Magistrate, has passed the questioned
\n     order. It\tmight have  to\tmake  inquiries\t as  to\t the
\n     situation in  the\tlocality,  the\tnature\tof  and\t the
\n     circumstances in  which detention\twas found necessary,
\n     the  previous  history  of\t the  person  detained\tetc.
\n     Therefore, it  is difficult  to agree with counsel that
\n     Government should\thave reached  its conclusion  during
\n     the said period………..There can be no hard and fast
\n     rule with\tregard to  the time  which Government can or
\n     should take,  and that each case must be decided on its
\n     own facts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We may  now consider  whether the facts here disclose a
\ndisregard  to\tthe  petitioner’s  constitutional  right  as
\nclaimed by  his counsel in his second and third submissions.
\nThe  petitioner’s  request  for\t copies\t of  statements\t and
\ndocuments  was\t received  by  the  detaining  authority  on
\nDecember 3,  1979, and\tat the\tinstance  of  the  detaining
\nauthority, the\tDirector of  Revenue Intelligence  furnished
\nthe copies  sought on  December 7, 1979. The authorities who
\nlaid the  information before the detaining authority and who
\nwere primarily\tconcerned in  the matter  were\tthe  Customs
\nauthorities via the Director of Revenue Intelligence. So the
\ndetaining  authority   directed\t the   Director\t of  Revenue
\nIntelligence to\t furnish copies\t of the documents and it was
\nso done.  There was  no delay in furnishing of documents and
\nno legitimate  complaint could\tbe made\t on that  score. The
\ndetenu’s  representation   was\treceived  by  the  detaining
\nauthority on  December 26,  1979. Without  any loss  of time
\ncopy  of   the\trepresentation\t was  sent  to\tthe  Customs
\nauthorities for\t their remarks. That was obviously necessary
\nbecause the  information leading  to the  order of detention
\nwas  laid   by\tthe  Customs  authorities.  The\t facts\twere
\nundoubtedly complex since the allegations against the detenu
\nrevealed an  involvement with  an international gang of dope
\nsmugglers. The\tcomments of  the  Customs  authorities\twere
\nreceived on  January 4, 1980. The Advisory Board was meeting
\non January  4, 1980 and so there could be no question of the
\ndetaining authority  considering the  representation of\t the
\ndetenu before the Board met, unless it was done in great and
\nundue haste.  After obtaining  the comments  of the  Customs
\nauthorities, it\t was found necessary to take legal advice as
\nthe  representation  posed  many  legal\t and  constitutional
\nquestions. So,\tafter consultation  with the  Secretary (Law
\nand Judicial)  Delhi Administration,  the representation was
\nfinally rejected  by the  Administrator on January 15, 1980.
\nThese facts are stated in the counter affidavit filed
\n1104<\/span>
\non behalf  of the Delhi Administration and are substantiated
\nby the\trecords produced  before us. If there appeared to be
\nany delay,  it was  not due  to any want of care but because
\nthe  representation   required\ta  thorough  examination  in
\nconsultation with investigators of fact and advisers on law.
\nWe have\t ourselves examined  the records  and we  find\tthat
\nthough the  Administrator considered  the representation  of
\nthe detenu after the hearing by the Board, the Administrator
\nwas entirely  uninfluenced by  the hearing before the Board.
\nThe application\t for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus is
\ntherefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\tPetition dismissed.\n1105<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 849, 1980 SCR (2)1095 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN Vs. RESPONDENT: W. C. KHAMBRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/02\/1980 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFrances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2931,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\",\"name\":\"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980","datePublished":"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980"},"wordCount":2931,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980","name":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T11:56:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frances-coralie-mullin-vs-w-c-khambra-ors-on-27-february-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}