LALJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition against his order of detention dated 21.9.1981 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad under section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petition was filed in this Court on 4.5.1982 arraying the Union of India, State of Uttar pradesh, the District Magistrate, Allahabad and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad as opposite parties Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The opposite parties were granted time for filing their replies to this petition. Accordingly two counter affidavits were filed on 7. 7 .1982, one by the District Magistrate, Allahabad and the second by an Upper Division Clerk of the U.P. Civil Secretriat, Lucknow. The Union of India also filed a counter affidavit on 197.1982. The petitioner filed his rejoinder affidavit on 7.9.1982 in reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.9.1982. On the same date Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel representing, the Union of India, filed in this Court a copy of the instructions received by him in a Telex message. Arguments were being addressed Sri Mohiley asked for further time for obtaining more detailed instructions but the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the fact the period of detention in this case would come to an end on 2nd of October, 1982. Hence, we did not accede to the request for further time for filing a counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of India.

(2.) We shall briefly state the facts which can be culled from the various affidavits filed in the case and the Telex message on which great reliance was placed on behalf of the Union of India. Although the order of detention was passed on 21.9.1981, the petitioner was actually arrested on 3.10.1981 and the order and grounds of detention were served on him the same day. Since the whole case turns on a single point, namely, the manner in which the petitioners representation made under section 14 of the Act for revocation was dealt with, it is not necessary to refer to other facts. According to the petitioner he sent two representations on 21.3.1982 for revocation of his detention, one addressed to the President of India and the other to the Governor of U.P. This averment was clearly made in paragraph 18 of the petition. In his rejoinder affidavit, however, the petitioner disclosed that the representation bad been sent on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Ramanand Singh, Advocate. It was urged on behalf of the opposite parties that since greater details about the person to whom and the manner in which the representations were actually despatched were not indicated clearly in the petition and had become explicit only in the rejinder affidavit, they should be allowed to obtain more specific instructions in this regard. Accordingly we accommodated the learned counsel for the opposite parties with the result that two things were brought on record, viz., a supplementary counter affidavit and a Telex message of the Union of India. The facts which thus emerge ultimately are that the State Government completely denied the receipt of any representation on behalf of the petitioner under section 14 of the Act addressed to it. The case of the Union of India, however, is that the Union Government received such representation and forwarded it to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 31.3.82. In the supplementary counter affidavit of the State it was added that the said representation was actually received by the State Government on 4.6.1982, Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit is significant and needs be reproduced: 2 That the aforesaid representation dated 27.3.1982 was received in confidential section 6 of the U.P. Secretriat after traveling in various sections on 4.6.1982. The representation was thereafter returned to Secretary to the Government of India, Home Ministry on 2.7 1982.

(3.) The Telex message points out that the representation was received back by the Union Government on 5.7.1982, that on 6.7.1982 the Union Government again requested the U.P. Government to furnish parawise comments on the representation. On 7.8.1982 the U.P. Government forwarded such parawise comments to the Union Government which were received by the latter on 13.8.1982 and the representation was actually rejected on 24.8.1982 by the Union Government. A communication to that effect dated 3.9.1982 is alleged to have been made to Sri Ramanand Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Obviously the above resume of the facts would point out glaring phases of inordinate delay, namely, 31.3.1982 to 4.6. 1982 and 5.7. 1982 to 24.8.1982. It will be noticed that while the first of these was caused in the gap between the despatch of the representation by the Union Government and its receipt by the State Government, the other was the period consumed by the Union Government in disposing of the representation even after receiving it back from the State Government along with the latters comments.