MOHAMMAD ALAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Tripathi, learned A. G. A. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Anurag Khanna for respondent No. 3.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed chal lenging the order dated 18th May, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980, under which the petitioner has been detained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the continuous detention of the petitioner as illegal in view of inor dinate and unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government.

(3.) WE have considered the submis sions of the learned counsel for the parties. In para 7 of counter- affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, it has been stated that requisite information was received on 6th July, 1998 and after processing representation in the light of the information received, with the comments of Higher authorities, representation was put up before Home Minister on 10th July, 1998. It was rejected on 2nd August, 1998. It could not be dis puted that the representation placed before Home Minister with all complete materials and comments and it could be decided with in one or two days. However, Home Minister took 22 days in deciding the representation. Even if explanation given in para 3 that some days were holidays and representation could not be decided, is accepted, there remains delay of 13 days for which there is no explana tion. The fact that the representation was decided on 2nd August, 1998, which admit tedly was a holiday shows that the repre sentation could be decided even on holidays and explanation given, thus, is not justified. Even if the explanation is accepted, delay of about 13 days, remains unexplained, which rendered petitioner's contention illegal, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajammal v. State of Tamilnadu and others, 1999 (1) JIC 524 (SC), has held that if there is no explana tion for even a short delay, the detention is rendered illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case directed the release of the detenu from detention on account of four days delay which was unexplained. The present case is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above.