RAJ BAHADUR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court to answer the following points, this case has been listed before us. The points formulated are :"1. Whether under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980, it is obligatory on the detaining authority to inform the detenu that he has a right to make a representation before the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act and if such information is not given to the detenu while serving the grounds, it shall vitiate the order of detention being in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

(2.) Whether in a case where the detenu has not been informed about his right to make a representation before the Central Government but he has himself otherwise made a representation or his representation made to the State Government has been forwarded to the Central Government and it has been considered and rejected by the Central Government and no prejudice has been caused to him, even then the order of detention shall vitiate being in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

(3.) Where the detenu has not made any representation to the Central Government but his representation made to the State Government is forwarded to the Central Government and delay is caused by Central Government in deciding such representation, the order of detention shall be rendered illegal?"2. The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :The petitioner, Raj Bahadur Yadav, was lodged District Jail Deoria, on 8-4-1996, in Case Crime No. 67 of 1996, under Sections 147/307/427/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act. The petitioner, while in jail, was served with the order of detention dated 22-4-1996 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Along with the order of detention, the petitioner was also served with the grounds on the basis of which the detention order was passed against him (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In the grounds it has been mentioned, inter alia, that taking advantage of unsatisfactory situation prevailing in Krishna Azad Sugar Mill situate in Kasba Gauri Bazar, the petitioner along with co-accused and other persons, at about 10.00 a.m. on 8-3-1996, proceeded towards the residence of the General Manager of the Mill Sri Shailendra Nath Mishra. After making inquiries from a gate keeper about the General Manager, the petitioner tried filthy abuses and exhorted the persons accompanying to kill the General Manager; the petitioner incited a crowd which demolished the boundary wall, broke open gates and attacked the General Manager. On being assaulted the General Manager fell on the ground; then the petitioner started pressing his neck and all efforts to save the General Manager proved futile. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other co-accused entered inside the Sugar Mill and destroyed scientific instruments and threw the inflammable chemicals after destroying the same. Somehow the Mill could be saved from a serious fire accident. After coming out of the laboratory, the petitioner again attacked the General Manager, who was lying injured. The intention of the petitioner was to destroy the Mill and to kill the General Manager. The attempt of the petitioner could be frustrated only on arrival of a large contingent of the police force and by intervention of the people assembled there. It has been stated in the grounds that the object of the petitioner was to disturb the public order and peace of the locality by inciting the Mill employees and sugarcane growers. The act of the petitioner was thus prejudicial to the public order and to maintain the public order, it became necessary to detain him. Two other incidents of criminal activities, in which the petitioner was involved, have also been mentioned in the grounds. It has also been mentioned that though his bail application has been rejected by the lower Court, the petitioner is trying to get himself bailed out from the Sessions Court.3. After mentioning the grounds of detention, the petitioner has also been informed that under Section 8 of the Act he has a right to make representation to the State Government and if he wants to make a representation to the State Government, it may be forwarded through the Superintendent Jail, Deoria, without delay. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner's case shall be considered by the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act, within three weeks and if the representation is sent after that period, it may not be considered. He was also informed that under Section 11(1) of the Act, the petitioner has a right of personal hearing before the Advisory Board and if he wants to avail this right, it should be specifically mentioned in the representation.