MOKHTAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned A. G. A. and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh for the respondents.

(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 continued 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 sion of the leaned counsel for the parties. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, it has been stated that requisite information was received on 6th July, 1998 and after processing the representation in the light of the information received, with the comments of the authorities, it was put up before Home Minister on 10th July, 1998. It was rejected on 2nd August, 1998. It cannot be disputed that the representation reached before Home Minister with all complete materials and comments and it could be decided within a day or two. However, Home Minister took 22 days in deciding the representation. Even if explanation given in paragraph 9 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. It may also be noticed that the representation was decided on 2nd August, 1998 which, it is claimed was a holiday. This fact shows that the explanation of delay based on intermittent holidays fall ing in between, is not justified. Even if the explanation, is accepted, delay of about 13 days, remains unexplained, which rendered petitioner's detention illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajam-mal v. State of Tamilnadu and others, JT 1998 (8) SC 598 has held that if there is no explanation for even a short delay, the continued detention is rendered illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case directed the release of the detenue from detention on account of four days delay, which was found unexplained. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above.