SIRI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) BY the aforesaid petition, Petitioner has challenged his continued detention including the legality of the order dated 21.3.1998 under which he has been detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner submitted his representation on 6.4.1998, which was received by the Union of India on 8.4.1998. The representation was processed for consideration and it was felt that certain vital information (opinion of Advisory Board) was required for which a wireless message was sent on 20.4.1998. The requisite information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 29.4.1998. On receipt of this information, the case was put up before Deputy Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 1.5.1998 who considered the matter and with his comments placed it before the Joint Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 5.5.1998. The Joint Secretary in his turn, considered the case and placed the same before the Home Minister on 5.5.1998. Home Minister after considering the representation rejected the same on 13.5.1998. The aforesaid dates have been also mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter -affidavit filed by Bina Prasad on behalf of Respondent No. 4 Union of India. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there is no explanation for the delay from 8.4.1998 to 20.4.1998. It is submitted that 12 days delay in sending requisition for collecting required information, remaining unexplained, continued detention of the Petitioner has been rendered illegal. It has been further submitted that the representation was placed with all material before the Home Minister on 5.5.1998 who could decide it on 13.5.1998. i.e., after 8 days. It is submitted that the explanation for delay has been given in para 8 of the counter -affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that dates 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11th of May, 1998 were holidays. Learned Counsel has submitted that so far as 2nd and 3rd May are concerned they are not relevant for consideration of the delay caused at the level of the Home Minister in deciding the representation as the representation was placed before him on 5.5.1998. It is further submitted that out of 8 days delay explanation has been tried to be given for 7, 9, 10 and 11th May, 1998. It is submitted that holidays falling between the two dates could not be appropriate ground for the Home Minister not to decide the representation expeditiously. It has been submitted that this Court has held that decision on the representation could not be postponed on account of certain holidays falling between the dates on which it was placed and the representation was decided. In this connection it has also been submitted that the delay from 8.4.1998 to 29.4.1998 has been caused in calling for the opinion of the Advisory Board, which was not material for deciding the representation of the Petitioner by Union of India. It is submitted that the representation should have been decided independently and its decision could not be postponed on the ground of non -availability of opinion of the Advisory Board. For the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance in case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. : JT 1998 (8) SC 598 and Pappu alias Ausan Singh v. Adhikshak Janpad Karagar Mainpuri, 1999 (1) JIC 234 (DB).