SHANINA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the wife of the detenu. The order of detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 66 of 1980 (for short, the "Act") was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, on 26-4-1999 while the detenu was already in jail custody. The said order was served on the detenu on 27-4-1999 and the grounds of detention were served on 30-4-1999. The State Government approved of the order of detention by order dated 6-5-1999 and the same was forwarded to the Central Government by letter dated 13-5-1999. Representations were made by the detenu to the State Government as well as the Central Government on 13-5-1999. The State Government rejected the representation on 29-5-1999 and the Central Government rejected the representation on 22-6-1999. Such orders rejecting the representations were subsequently communicated.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (i) The order dated 6-5-1999 of the State Government confirming the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate was not communicated to the Central Government within seven days; (ii) The State Government and the Central Government had not disposed of the representations within a reasonable time; (iii) The order of detention was served on the detenu while he was already in jail custody and the grounds do not disclose any reasonable basis for the Collector and District Magistrate to come to conclusion that it was necessary to pass the order of detention; (iv) In the grounds of detention, reference was made to involvement of the detenu in twentythree cases during past nine years without giving the particulars of cases and without giving any documents in support of such allegations contained in the grounds of detention.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the counter-affidavit of opposite party No. 1 discloses that the order of approval dated 6-5-1999 was communicated to the Central Government on 15-5-1999 and as such the order was vitiated on account of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 3(5) of the Act.