KRUSHNA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus after quashing the order of detention of son of the petitioner passed on1.9.1999 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (in short, the 'Act') by the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'detaining authority') contained in Annexure -1 and the order dated 12.9.1999 passed by the State Government approving the same contained in Annexure -3.

(2.) AS the writ application is bound to succeed on a short point, as such it is not necessary to state the facts. It has been stated in the writ application that son of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') submitted two representations on 30.9.1999 before the jail authority, one for being forwarded to the State Government and the other to the Central Government. Both the representations were sent through the concerned District Magistrate on the same day for being forwarded to the aforesaid two Governments. The detaining authority sent the representation filed by the detenu for being sent to the State Government in the Home Department on 5.10.1999 and the same was received on 8.10.1999. The said representation was placed in the file on 2.2.2000. i.e. after about lour months from the date of its receipt. Thereafter it took 26 days for disposal as it has been stated that on 28.2.2000 representation filed by the detenu was rejected.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it has been admitted in paragraph 10 that the representation was received in the Home Department on 8.10.1999, same was placed in the file on 2.2.2000 for consideration, and it was rejected on 28.2.2000. Nowhere it has been stated in the counter affidavit as to why it took about four months' time in placing representation in the file. It has also not been Stated in the counter affidavit as to why 26 days' time was taken for disposal of the representation after same was kept in the file. In view of these facts, it is not possible to maintain the order of detention and order passed by the State Government approving the same.