AVNISH KUMAR BHADORIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed by the above named three petitioners challenging the orders of their detention passed under the National Security Act and for their release from detention.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of these Habeas Corpus Petitions are that on 16.9.2008 on the basis of a F.I.R. lodged under Sections 489-Kha and 489-Ga, I.P.C. Case Crime No. 219 of 2008 was registered at Police Station Visungarh, District Kannauj against the petitioners and one Shishupal Singh with these allegations that on the aforesaid date 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/ - each were recovered from possession of the petitioner, Viresh Kumar, 30 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from possession of the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Bhadauriya, 30 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from possession of petitioner, Avanish Kumar Bhadauriya and 30 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from possession of co-accused, Shishupal. On the basis of above recovery of counterfeit currency notes worth Rs. 95,000/-, the S.O. of P.S. Visungarh submitted proposals before the District Magistrate Kannauj against the petitioners for their detention under the National Security Act through proper channel and the District Magistrate, on the basis of that report, passed separate orders against all these petitioners on 27.9.2008 for their detention under the National Security Act. Against the above order, the petitioners submitted their representations on 16.10.2008 but those representations were rejected by the concerned authorities. THEn they filed these writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that in these cases the files were received by the Home Secretary, Union of India on 23.10.2008 but he did not pass any order on the representations of the petitioners at the earliest and he passed the order rejecting the representations on 3.11.2008 i.e. after expiry of 11 days from the date of receipt of files of the petitioners. It was further pointed out that even after rejection of the representations of the petitioners there was delay of 7 days in communication of the order and so this order is vitiated. In support of this contention he cited before us a ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others, 1981 SCC (Cri.) 589 in which it has been held that the representation of the detenu must be decided as soon as possible and unnecessary delay in its disposal amounts to violation of the safeguards enshrined under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and renders the detention unconstitutional. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 SCC (Cri) 93. In this case there was delay of 5 days in disposal of the representation by the Minister because he was outstation on tour. This explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the further detention was found to be illegal. In Jaggu alias Jagvinder Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) JIC 1 (All) a Division Bench of this Court found the delay of 15 days in deciding the representation unreasonable as no explanation was offered for the same, and so the further detention was found to be bad in law. In Prem Chand alias Pintu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) JIC 46 (All) the same Division Bench held that the delay of 5 days in deciding the representation when it was unexplained, rendered the detention illegal.