FATHIMA BEEVI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed O.P.No.34of 1993 before the District Court, Trivandrum under sub-s.(8) of S.8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "the Act") against an order passed under sub-s.(4) of S.8 of the Act. There was a delay in filing the application and the petitioner filed I.A.No.535 of 1993 for condoning the same. That application was rejected by the learned District Judge as per the order challenged in the revision petition.

(2.) The order under S.8(4) of the Act was affixed on the front door of the petitioner's house on 15-12-1992. Going by the provisions contained in S.8(8) of the Act the petitioner should have filed the application within 30 days from 15-12-1992. However, it was filed only on 15-3-1993. There was thus a delay of two months in filing the application.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the delay in filing the O.P. occurred mainly on account of the wrong advice received by her from her Advocate who was approached by her immediately on getting information about the order. The Advocate at the first instance advised the petitioner to file a petition before the District Collector and the Director- General of Police. Accordingly the petitioner has within time represented her grievance to the District Collector through her Advocate. It was when she again approached the Advocate after six weeks that the Advocate has advised her to file a petition under S.8(8) of the Act before the District Court. If she was advised at the first instance itself to file a petition under S.8(8) of the Act the delay would not have occurred in the matter. In support of the said allegations the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn to by the Advocate who was approached by her for advice regarding the actions to be taken to challenge the order passed under S.8(4) of the Act.