PRATAP KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Badal alias Soumya Ranjan Mohanty (hereinafter called the 'detenu') was detained Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 65 of 1980, as per the order dated 22. 3. 1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack. The present writ application seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the brother of the detenu. Though several grounds have been taken in the writ petition and pressed into service at the time of hearing of the writ application, it is unnecessary to deal with all such contentions, as in our opinion, the writ application is to succeed on one ground, namely on the ground of undue delay in disposing the representation of the detenu.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with this point, it is necessary to notice the relevant dates. As already indicated, the order of detention was passed on 22. 3. 1 999 and the detaining authority forwarded all papers including grounds of detention to the State Government for approval on 26. 3. 1 999. The State Government approved of the order of detention on 31. 3. 1999. It appears that the detenu made representations before the State Government as well as the Central Government. One representation was made from jail on 12. 5. 1999 and the order of the State Government rejecting the same was communicated on 11. 6. 1999. The representation submitted before the Central Government was rejected on 24. 6. 1999.

(3.) LAW is now well settled that representation of a detenu has to be dealt with by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible without any unreasonable delay. It is the constitutional obligation of the appropriate Government to consider the representation filed by a detenu without any undue delay. It is true that no specific period has been prescribed under Article 22 of the Constitution for taking any decision on the matter of representation of a detenu, but the expression 'as soon as may be' contained in Clause (5) of Article 22 clearly conveys the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. The aforesaid seems to be the settled view of the Supreme Court in series of decisions noticed in the decision reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 417(Rajammal v. State of T. N. and Anr.) and it is not necessary to multiply authorities on the point. In the decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417, the unexplained delay between 9. 2. 1998 when the representation along with the necessary documents was submitted and 14. 2. 1998, when the Minister who had received the same while he was on tour dealt with the matter, was found fatal and the order of detention was quashed on the ground that delay from 9. 2. 1998 to 14. 2. 1998 had remained unexplained.