SOHRAB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri K. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India.

(2.) THE petitioner herein has sought for issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court and to set him at liberty. It appears that Case Crime No. 199 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner at police station Bithri Chainpur, district Bareilly. THE petitioner surrendered himself in the Court below and applied for bail. THE District Magistrate, Bareilly, however, passed an order under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 1980, for detention of the petitioner in order to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the basis, the report submitted by the sponsoring authority in the back-ground of Case Crime No. 199 of 1999, aforestated the detention order was served on the petitioner on 1.7.1999, while he was in jail. THE order of detention was approved by the State Government on 9.7.1999, and confirmed on 18.8.1999. THE petitioner made a representation on 14.7.1999 to the State Government and the Central Government through the Jail Superintendent, Bareilly. THE representations were handed over to the District Magistrate on 14.7.1999, itself, which was rejected by the State Government on 4.8.1999. THE continued detention of the petitioner is sought to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in disposal of the representation.

(3.) IT would thus appear that if the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate is to be believed then there is no explanation at all for the period between 14.7.1999 and 30.7.1999. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, the representation was sent to the State Government on 30.7.1999, whereas according to the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government the representation was received by the State Government on 16.7.1999 and it was thereafter, that the State Government wrote a letter on 19.7.1999 to the District Magistrate, Bareilly, asking the latter to send extra copies of the representation as well as parawise comments thereof. However, there is no explanation at all for the delay between 19.7.1999 and 30.7.1999. Legal position well settled is that unexplained delay in deciding the representation would vitiate the continued detention. See K. M. Abdullah Konhi v. Union of India, 1999 (1) SC 216, Venmathi Selvan (Mrs.) v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, JT 1998 SC 393.