PARVEZ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is preferred against the order of detention dated August 6, 1998 passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Varanasi under Section 3 (2) of the Na tional Security Act. The grounds of deten tion have also been served upon the detenu. It indicates an incident said to have taken place on 26-6-1998 in which one Yogendra Pratap Singh was seriously injured and later died. U disturbed the public order and resulted in communal tension.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. P. Singh for the State and Sri Bal Mukund for the Union of India. The only point pressed by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that there was un complained delay on the part of the Central Govern ment in disposing of his representation. The representation dated 9-8-1998 was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 2-9-1998. The Central Government sought certain infor mation from the State Government through wireless message dated 4-9-1998. The required information was sent by the State Government on 5-9-98 which was received in the Central Government on 7-9-98. The matter was considered by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on 10-9-98 and (sic) the same before the Minis try of Home Affairs alongwith the com ments on 10-9-98. The Joint Secretory in tire Ministry of Home Affairs in his turn placed the matter before the Home Mini ster of Government of India on 11-9-1998. The Home Minister considered the mat ter and rejected the representation on 25-9-98. It may be mentioned that the dates given above are indicated in the counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that so far the period between 11-9-1998 to 25-9-98 is concerned not a word has been said about it. It is though mentioned that 12th, 13th, 19th 20th September, 1998 were holidays, therefore, these four days are liable to be excluded from the period during which the matter remained pend ing before the Home Minister. WE hardly find that the said averment in any manner explains the delay. Intermittent holidays between the submission of the repre sentation and its disposal are not to be excluded in the manner as sought, some holidays and Sundays are bound to fall in between, we cannot pick up such closure days in explaining the delay. On the own showing of the Central Government, the matter was fully processed by the officers of the department by 10-9-98. It was there after that the matter was placed before the Home Minister on 11-9-98 as indicated earlier not a word has been said as to in what circumstances for fourteen days the representation, which was ripe for dis posal remained pending. In our view there is substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the period remains unexplained. Unexplained delay in disposal of the representation vitiates the further continuance of the detention. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has also been placed in a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in J. T. 1998 (8) S. C. 598 Rajamma v. Stale of Tamil Nadu and Anr, Our attention has particularly been drawn to paragraph-9 of the decision wherein it was been observed that if the delay is caused on account of any indif ference or lapse in considering the repre sentation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.