MEHARBAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 28. 09. 2006 bearing File No. 347/la. Judl. /2006/760-61 passed by the Commissioner of Police under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 and approved by the Lt. Governor of Delhi by an order dated 6. 10. 2006 in exercise of his powers under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the said Act. It is not in dispute that the detention order is due to expire in the 1st Week of November in any case.

(2.) THE petitioner Meharban, a 28 year old man, is kept under detention on the ground that he is involved in 13 criminal activities during the period 20. 01. 2001 to 21. 08. 2006, including riots, dacoity, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and murder, etc. apart from having committed acts punishable under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters act and the Arms Act. Three D. D Entries regarding threats for extortion have also been lodged against the petitioner. With a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order the petitioner has been kept in detention from 07. 11. 2006 and continues to be in detention till date. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted in four of the aforesaid cases, seven cases are pending trial and one case is under investigation and in one case his sentence has been suspended by the Hon'ble allahabad High Court where his appeal against conviction is pending.

(3.) A representation was forwarded by the petitioner on 18th May, 2007 to the Central Government for revocation of the impugned detention order vide speed post which was received by the Central Govt. in the Ministry of home Affairs on 19th May, 2007, as is borne out by the Speed Post Reply note dated 30th July, 2007 given in answer to the application submitted by the counsel for the petitioner to the Post Master of the Delhi High Court post Office on 25th July, 2007 to intimate to the counsel for the petitioner the date when the letter/representation sent by speed post on 18th May, 2007 was delivered to the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. Apparently, this course of action was adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the delay caused by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the consideration of the representation of the petitioner from 18th May, 2007 to 13th June, 2007 and the ultimate rejection thereof on 22nd June, 2007.