MOHAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 8-1-1999 passed against him by Respondent No. 2-Dis trict Magistrate, Chitrakoot under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.

(3.) IT is significant to point out that underlying idea behind Section 8 of the National Security Act is that the detenu should have earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order to the appropriate authorities. Indeed, a duty is cast on the authorities concerned also to take every possible step for consideration of the rep resentation of the detenu at the earliest without any loss of time. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ruling relied upon by the learned AGA which was handed down nearly 9 years back would not come to the rescue of the authorities concerned. There has been marked improvement in the means of the communication during the intervening period. Several fast means of communica tion have come to occupy the field. The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot ought to have ensured the communication and delivery of the representation dated 15-4-1999 of the detenu to the Central Govern ment by faster and quicker means instead of dealing with the representation in a casual manner by directing the Nazarat on 19-4-1999 to send it to the Central Government. The Nazarat itself took two days in complying with this order and sent the representation to the Central Govern ment by registered post on 21-4-1999. IT has been admitted by the District Magistrate, Sri Jagannath Singh, Respon dent No. 2 in paragraph 8 of his counter-af fidavit that the representation was sub mitted by the petitioner on 15-4-1999 whereupon, parawise comments were prepared which were ready on 19-4-1999. The period thereafter consumed upto 4-5-1999 when the representation of the detenu reached the Central Government is inordinate and cannot be explained by simply averring that it was sent to the Central Government by registered post on 21-4-1999. Such inordinate and unex plained delay ultimately contributed in the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the Central Government where it was rejected by the Home Minister on 8-5-1999. When the question of liberty is involved and that too by means of preven tive detention, it is incumbent upon all the authorities to explain the delay in con sideration of the representation. They have to act as one unit to ensure earliest decision on the representation of the detenu. Every step is required to be taken by each part of the machinery of the authorities concerned to facilitate and en sure the earliest decision on the repre sentation of the detenu. In the instant case, the requisite steps and care had not been taken by rest. ndent No. 2 in sending the representation of the petitioner to the Central Government by quicker and faster means available nowadays. There is no valid and justified explanation of the delay between 19-4-1999 to 4-5-99 (16 days ). In our opinion, it renders the continued detention of the petitioner to be illegal and the petitioner is entitled to the relief.