DINA BELA RODRIGUES DE BRAGANZA Vs. A VENKATRATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu who is challenging by a Writ of Cetiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution the Order of detention passed against him by the respondent No. 1 to 22nd October, 1991 under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Order was served on the detenu on 23-10-1991 and on the same date the Grounds of Detention were also supplied to him. There are about six grounds sought to be made out by the Detaining Authority in the Order of Detention. It was subsequently confirmed on 28-10-1991 by the respondent No. 2 under sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act. The detention has been allegedly made with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On 15th November, 1991 the detenu made a representation to the respondent No. 2 setting out the grounds for revocation of the detention order and with a request that a copy of the representation should be sent to the Central Government, the respondent No. 3, for consideration. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by Order dated 22-11-1991. The respondent No. 3 disposed of the said representation which was also rejected only on 24-12-1991. The said order of the respondent No. 3 was communicated to the State Government, respondent No. 2, by wireless message dated 27-12-1991 but the same was communicated to the detenu only on 1-8- 1992 (sic ).

(2.) SHRI Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised two grounds against the impugned order which, accordingly to him, is illegal, bad and without jurisdiction. The first ground advanced by Shri Kamat is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government, respondent No. 3, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner which has not at all been explained which delay by itself vitiates the Order of Detention being violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The second ground sought to be made out by Shri Kamat is that all the incidents referred to in the Grounds of Detention and purportedly involving a breach of public order cannot be considered as violation of any public order but being only cases of law and order which could have been effectively dealt with by the normal criminal laws. According to Shri Kamat none of the incidents alleged to have been committed by the detenu lie in the realm of public order which could not be the foundation for an order of detention under the Act and could be cared of by the normal laws. Therefore, there was no question of any activity committed by the detenu which would cause breach of the even tempo of the community and therefore it could not be said that the order of detention was required to be passed against him in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) ELABORATING the first ground of attack Shri Kamat has stated that the representation of the detenu was dated 15-11-1991 which was received by the Jailor on 15-11-1991. However the Jailor forwarded the representation of the detenu to the respondent No. 2 on 17-11-1991 without explaining the delay of one day being a fact that there was no justification for the Jailor to keep the application with him for a single day due to the proximity of the place where the representation was handed over and the place wherein the said representation had to be forwarded by the Jailor Shri Kamat has further contended that thereafter such representation was sent by the State Government to the Central Government only on 25-11-1991, that is to say, after a period of seven days. According to Shri Kamat, again this period of seven days was not at all explained by the State Government. The representation was received by the Central Government on 28-11-1991 who ultimately disposed of the said application only by Order dated 24-12-1991. Before that the respondent No. 3 sought information from the respondent No. 2 by wireless message. The said representation was received by respondent No. 3 on 28-11-1991. The said information was supplied by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 on 5-12-1991 and after that respondent No. 3 rejected the representation on 24-12-1991, i. e. after a period of 19 days delay which delay was again not explained by the respondent No. 3. It is the further contention of Shri Kamat that after the Order rejecting the representation dated 24-12-1991 was passed the same was communicated to the State Government by wireless message only on 27-12-1991, subsequently confirmed by a letter of the same date. However, the said rejection was communicated to the detenu only on 8-1-1992, that is to say about 15 days after the rejection of the representation. This delay was also not explained by the respondent No. 3.