ASHARAF Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus petition, an order dated 8.3.2003 made by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 directing the preventive detention of one M.A.Shabir son of Thiru M.I.Abbas is challenged.

(2.) The grounds suggest that the concerned detenu was a party to the conspiracy to cause damages to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation buses plying in Kerala and to plant a time-bomb in Coimbatore City to terrorise the people of Coimbatore and also to throw a challenge to the Coimbatore City Police. It is suggested that this conspiracy was between the detenu and other accused persons, like one Abdul Nazar Maudani. It is also suggested in the grounds that some incriminating articles were seized by the police which included geletin sticks, electric detonator and battery connected with an improvised timer and some other items, like inflammatory messages in English given in the name of outlawed outfits, like Al-Umma, Chennai and Ameer AlJihad, Bombay. It is suggested further in the grounds that the detenu was arrested on 3.1.2003 as his hand was suspected and he gave a confession statement of his being involved in the anti-social activities and also the aforementioned conspiracy to terrorise the general public of Coimbatore City and to throw a challenge to the Coimbatore Police. We need not go into other details of the conspiracy which formed part of the grounds as Mr.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel relies only on one point.

(3.) According to the learned counsel, though a representation was made dated 22.3.2003 through the prison Superintendent, that representation was refused to be considered by the Central Government. Learned counsel points out that the said representation with four copies thereof was tendered to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem. All these copies were forwarded to the State Government and the State Government, in its turn, sent one of the copies to the Central Government. learned counsel then invites our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India and points out that this representation was admittedly received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 1.4.2003 from the Government of Tamil Nadu and an English translation was called for by the Central Government on 1.4.2003 from the Government of Tamil Nadu which translation was received by the Central Government on 4.4.2003. It went to the concerned desk of the Central Government Home Ministry on 7.4.2003, however, since the representation was not addressed to the Central Government, the same was returned to the State Government for action under section 8 of the Act on 17.4.2003. From this, learned counsel then points out that thus there was a total refusal on the part of the Central Government to consider the representation merely because it was not addressed to the Central Government, though the representation was placed with the Central Government and the Central Government having invited the translation thereof was in the know of the nature of the representation also. Learned counsel further points out that in paragraph-7 of the counter it is admitted that another representation dated 4.4.2003 from Smt. Ramlah, mother of the detenu Shabir was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22.4.2003 in the concerned desk of the Ministry, however, since even that representation was not addressed to the Central Government, the same was sent to the State Government for action. Learned counsel then points out that there was a third representation received by the Central Government on 15.7.2003, however, this representation was immediately processed for consideration and the case of the detenu was put before the Director of Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.7.2003. It was considered and the Union Home Secretary rejected the same on 18.7.2003. From this, learned counsel says that though the last representation was considered and rejected by the Central Government, his two representations were ignored by the Central Government or as the case may be, refused to be considered and thereby the constitutional right under Article 22(5) of active and alacritic consideration of the representation has been breached. Learned counsel relied upon the oft-quoted decision in GRACY V. STATE OF KERALA (1991 SCC (Cri) 467) and more particularly, the following observation by the Supreme Court:- "