PAPPU ALIAS AUSAN SINGH Vs. ADHIKSHAK JANPAD KARAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted two writ petitions are directed against the orders of detention of the petitioners passed under S. 3(3) of the National Security Act by theDistrict Magistrate, Mainpuri. The orders of detention in respect of both the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions have been passed on 20-12-1997. Since the grounds of detention of the two petitioners are same as well as other facts including the points involved, both the petitions have been heard together. However, the only difference between the facts of the two cases is that the representation of the petitioner Pappu alias Ausan Singh in Writ Petition No. 21277 of 1998 was rejected by the Central Government by order dated 24-2-1998; whereas the representation of Rajeev, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21293 of 1998 was rejected by order dated 2-3-1998. Both the parties agree that in all other respects the petitions raise similar questions of fact and law. therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the orders of detention and the continued detention of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had been in jail at the time when the orders of detention were passed and served upon them and had not moved any application for bail. It was legally not permissible to pass an order of detention in the above circumstances. The next contention is that the representations of the petitioners were sent to the Advisory Board by the State Government after the hearing before the Advisory Board had already taken place; hence their representations were not considered by the Advisory Board. Yet another contention is that the representations of the petitioners have not been promptly decided by the Central Government and the delay is also not explained; hence the continued detention of the petitioners is illegal.

(3.) The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have been countered on behalf of the State. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioners had not moved any application for bail was in the knowledge of the authority passing the order of detention, which fact was taken into account, but there was material to infer likelihood of the petitioners' being released on bail; hence the orders of detention are not bad. So far as the consideration of the representations by the Advisory Board is concerned, it is not denied that it was sent to the Advisory Board after the date of hearing but the Advisory Board had considered the same. The learned State Counsel also contended that there was no inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representations of the petitioner, hence continued detention of the petitioners would not be invalid.