IN RE: SMT. MANJU DEVI MAHENSARIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus is directed against an order of detention dated 26.3.96. as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application which reads thus

(2.) The order of detention was ultimately served on the detenu as noticed hereinbefore, on 4.4.96. The detenu filed an interim representation on 12.4.96 praying for supply of translated copies of the documents in Hindi. The said representation was sent by the Jail authorities on 23.4.96. Despite the fact that allegedly the request of the detenue for supply of translated copies of the documents in Hindi had not been supplied, a very detailed representation in 8 copies were handed over to the Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Alipore. on 20.4.96. It is admitted by the jail authorities as is evident from Annexure 'X' at page 42 to the affidavit in reply that whereas the representation dated -12.4.96 was sent on 23.4.96. the representation dated 20.4.96 was sent under Memo No. 1162/Cofeposa/96 dated 4.5.96 was posted on 6.5.96. It is urged by Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner tint such undue delay in remission of the representations of the detenu oh the part of the Jail authorities vitiates the entire order of detention. In support of has aforementioned contention, reliance has been placed by him to the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India and Others, reported in : (1989) 3 SCC 277 : AIR 1989 SC 1403 and in the case of B. Alamelu vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors:. reported in, AIR 1995 SC 539. It is further submitted that the ground of detention is a verbatim copy of the show cause notice. Learned Counsel urges that keeping in view the fact that sufficient number of copies of the representation dated 20.4.96 were handed over to the Superintendent, Presidency Jail, as far back on 20.4.96, it was incumbent on the Central Government to dispose of the said representation, and in any event, contends Learned Counsel, a copy of the writ application having been served upon the Learned Counsel for the Central Government on 8.5.96, which contained the aforementioned representation, there was absolutely no reason as to why the said representation had not been disposed of by the Central Government and/or by the detaining authority as yet Reliance in this connection has been placed in the case of Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in AIR 1991 SC 1030 and in the case of Jai Prakash vs. District Magistrate, Bulahdshahar, reported in, 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 392 :, 1992 AIR SCW 3360.

(3.) It is further contended that the order of detention suffers from a total non -application of mind.