SURESH ATMARAM AMBRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-detenu (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) takes exception to the detention order dated 2-5-1992 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.

(2.) IT was alleged against the detenu that he had been indulging in acts of physical violence by making use of dangerous weapons such as choppers and iron rods and the like and waylaying people and committing various offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged against him that the people in the localities of Ambyachi Bharni, Shivneri, Tanaji Wadi, Tulshet Pada, Sai Hill, Nardas Nagar, Pipe Line, Tembipada of Bhandup (West) were mortally afraid of him on account of his nefarious and notorious activities. He is considered to be a weapon wielder, desperado and a gangster. Therefore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Bombay Police Commissioner took a decision to detain him under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.

(3.) IN order to challenge the detention order, the detenu raised number of grounds in his writ petition. However, it is not necessary to deal with them all as the petition should succeed on a single ground that his representation was not considered by the Central Government as expeditiously as possible and there was considerable delay in doing so which has not been satisfactorily explained. Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the detenu, accordingly urged that admittedly the detenu had submitted his representation on 30-10-1993 to the jail authorities for being transmitted to the State Government and the Central Government for their consideration. The said representation was admittedly received by the Central Government on 19-11-1993. Mr. Pradhan pointed out that the representation in question was admittedly rejected by the Central Government on 12-12-1993 and the delay in considering the representation of the detenu between 19-11-1993 and 12-12-1993 has not been satisfactorily explained. Mr. Pradhan then urged that from the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government and the Central Government it is crystal clear that the delay in considering the representation of the detenu was on account of the fact that the Central Government was awaiting the opinion of the Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act which opinion, further submitted by Mr. Pradhan, was not binding on the Central Government as the Central Government could take its own decision, the report of the Advisory Board notwithstanding.