PUMA CHANDRA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 3-10-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (In short the Act) vide Annexure - 6 and its approval by the State Government vide Annexure -13.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently a Council for representing Ward No. 9 of Rajgangpur Municipality for the second time and is an active worker of Biju Janata Dal in the district of Sundargarh. He has associated himself with many social and health programmes for the larger interest of the people of the society being the member of the Pulse Polio Immunisation Coordination Committee arid the National Leprosy Elimination Campaign Programmes within Rajgangpur municipal areas. He is also a member of the Finance Committee of the Municipality. He is also associated in construction and trading business having a turnover of more than Rs. 30 lakhs per annum. It has been alleged by the petitioner that due to business rivalry and being actuated with political malice as he is opposed to the present political party in power, the impugned order of detention has been passed with the aid and assistance of the ruling party in order to harass him. The further case of the petitioner is that in the year, 1993 the then Collector, Sundargarh, being satisfied with his conduct had issued an arm licence bearing No. 3/93/Sadar for self, protection. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned, order of detention was passed on political motivation while he was in custody. The petitioner due to political rivalry was implicated in some false and frivolous criminal cases and was arrested on 12-9-1999 in connection with Rajgangpur P.S. Case No. 140/99, The sum and substance of the political reasons and the detaining authority detained him without application of mind. The petitioner challenges the order of detention, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(3.) The State Government and the detaining authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Sundargarh, have filed separate counter affidavits. An. affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Union of India informing the Court that the report regarding the detention of the petitioner sent to the Union of India by the State Government on 22-10-1999 was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 28-10-1999. The representation alongwith the report was considered and rejected on 29-10-1999 and the order of rejection was communicated to the detenu on 1-11-1999 vide written message and letter dated 2-11-1999.