MUKHTAR ANSARI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order of deten tion 20th March, 1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Act) under which the petitioner has been detained.

(2.) MR. D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the legality of continued detention of the petitioner under the impugned order on the ground of inordirnate and unexplained delay in not deciding the representation of the petition sent to Central Government. It has been submitted that one repre sentation was sent by registered post on 30th March, 1999 through counsel which had already been delivered to the Central Government as is clear from the acknow ledgement receipt filed as Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. It has been further submitted that nine copies of the repre sentation were presented to the jail authorities for being forwarded to the State Government, Central Government and Advisory Board. The representation was forwarded by the District Magistrate with his comments on 7th April, 1999 to the State Government. The State Govern ment received the representation on 8th April, 1999 and forwarded it to the Central Government on 9th April, 1999, which was received by Central Government on 10th April, 1999. It is submitted that more than a month has passed but the representation has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the counter-affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Agrawal, Joint Secretary, Home and confidential Department U. P. Civil Secretariat, Luck-now. In paragraph 5 of the counter-af fidavit it has been stated that the repre sentation was forwarded to the Central Government on 9th April, 1999, which was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 10th April, 1999. On 16th April, 1999, vide telex message the Central Government asked to send opinion of the Advisory Board. As the report was not available, hence the State Government in timated to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, through letter dated 19th April, 1999 that the report of the Advisory Board would be sent as soon as the same is received. The report of the Advisory Board was received on 26th April, 1999 and it informed the Central Government through State Government's fax message dated 26th April, 1999 with the opinion of Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that in-spite of the knowledge that the report of the opinion of the Advisory Board was not available, consideration of the repre sentation filed by the petitioner was postponed and it has not been decided.

(3.) WE have also heard Sri A. K. Tripathi and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A. G. A. They have submitted that there is no delay on the part of the State Govern ment. All the constitutional safeguards have been complied with maticulously. However, in absence of necessary facts as to on which date the representation was decided by the Central Government, they could not justify further detention of the petitioner under the impugned order.