RAHAMATULLAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the petitioner who has been detained under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter "the Act"). The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this petition and not disputed before us may be stated thus:

(2.) The first contention of Mr. R. K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the State Government did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereby violated Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated, "since the Advisory Board was going to consider this case on June 29, 1981, the comments of the District Magistrate were kept handy for use during the sitting of the Board. The report of the Board was received by the Government after office hours on June 29, 1981. The next morning i.e. on June 30, 1981, the report of the Advisory Board as well as the representation of the petitioner was examined by the office and the file was endorsed to the Chief Minister on July 1, 1981 by the Special Secretary of the Home (Special) Department suggesting that 'in view of the report of the Advisory Board, the detention of Shri Rahamatullah may be confirmed and be directed to be detained for a period of twelve months'."

(3.) Before we consider the first submission of learned counsel, a few more facts need be stated. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that he had submitted the representation on May 13, 1981 which fact was denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit; they asserted that the representation was submitted not on May 13, but May 31. This has not been controverted before us by Mr. Garg. It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit and not denied by the petitioner-that the petitioner submitted the representation to the Superintendent of the Dist. jail, Dhanbad, where he was detained; the superintendent, District Jail, sent it by registered post on the following day, namely, June 1, and the Home (Special) Department of the Government received it on June 5. It has been stated further in the counter-affidavit- that "the representation contained certain points which needed a report" from the District Magistrate. A copy of the representation was sent on June 10, to the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, through a special messenger, for comments, which were received on June 24. The respondents explained that since the Advisory Board was going to sit for consideration of the petitioner's case on June 29, they sent the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board for consideration and placed the comments of the District Magistrate before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board's report was received on June 29 and the following day, the Home Department 'examined' the representation as well as the opinion of the Advisory Board on June 30, and endorsed the file on July 1 to the Chief Minister who approved the detention. But the respondents have not explained their inaction during (i) the period of five days from June 5 to June 10 taken by the Home Department to send the representation to the District Magistrate for his comments; (ii) the period of fourteen days from June 10 to June 24 taken by the District Magistrate to send his comments and (iii) the period of five days from June 24 to June 29 taken by the Home Department in placing the District Magistrate's comments before the Advisory Board and placing the matter before the Chief Minister. Thus the total period of inaction of the respondents is twenty-four days.