KISHORE BABUBHAI SOLANKI Vs. R D TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition takes exception to the order of detention issued on 8th April 1996 by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay - respondent No.1 under the provisions of the National Security Act. A copy of the said Order is annexed as Annexure Rs.4' to this Petition. Pursuant to the said Order, the petitioner came to be detained on 8th April 1996. The petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention alongwith the order of detention on 8th April 1996, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 'B' to this Petition.

(2.) THE Petition seeks to challenge the aforesaid order of detention on various grounds. However, this Petition can be allowed on the short ground of delay in considering the representation of the petitioner made against the order of detention which is taken in Ground 'F' of paragraph 8 of the Petition. Paragraph 8(F) of the Petition states that the representation was forwarded to the Central Government on behalf of the petitioner on 7th May 1996. However, from the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents i.e. both the State Government and the Union of India, it appears that the said representation was considered and ultimately rejected by the Prime Minister of India on 17th June 1996 and the said rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 22nd June 1996. In view of the said position, Mr.Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner detenu, contends that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the Union of India in considering the representation made on behalf of the petitioner. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India by Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, it appears that the representation dated 7th May 1996 sent on behalf of the petitioner was received by the Home Ministry, Government of India, on 13th May 1996. The said representation was immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain vital information was required and, therefore, wireless message was sent on 14th May 1990 to the State Government and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, who is the detaining authority, calling for some information. The said information seems to have been received by the Union of India on 30th May 1996 which was sent by the Commissioner of Police by his letter dated 25th May 1996. After receipt of the said information, the case of the detenu was placed before the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 31st May 1996 i.e. immediately on the next day after receipt of the information. The Deputy Secretary considered the same and placed the case papers before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on the same day i.e. on 31st May 1996, alongwith his comments. The Joint Secretary, in turn, considered the case and put up the same before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 3rd June 1996, alongwith his comments. The Special Secretary processed the matter and placed the file before the Minister of State for Home on 4th June 1996, who, in turn, submitted the case papers before the Prime Minister of India on the same day The Prime Minister considered the case of the detenu and rejected the representation on 17th June 1996.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid facts, it appears that there was a delay at two stages on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation of the detenu and the same has not been explained in the affidavit filed by the Desk Officer on behalf of the Central Government.