SIBA MAHALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the order of detention whereby his brother Godhi alias Ranjan Mahala (hereinfter referred to as 'the detenu') has been detained in terms ofa order dated 4.3.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act'). The further prayer is for quashing the order of approval dated 12.3.2001 (Annexure 3) and the order of confirmation dated 16.4.2001 (Annexure 4) and for declaring his continued detention to be illegal and unwarranted.

(2.) IT is not disputed that at the time of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in jail custody in Choudwar Circle Jail and the order of detention was served on him on 15.3.2001. The grounds of detention along with all enclosures in English as well as Oriya language which were relied upon by the detaining authority forming a subjective satisfaction was served on the detenu onn 7.2.2001. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 12.3.2001. Though informed that he had a right to make a representation, that right was not exercised by the detenu even before the Advisory Board which submitted its report that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On a consideration of the entire material before it, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 16.4.2001. The report under section 3(5) of the Act was made to the Central Government by the State Government vide its letter dated 13.3.2001. Said report was received by the Central Government on 20.3,2001 and after due examination, vide order dated 27,3.2001 the Central Government was of the opinion that there was no cause to interfere with the order of detention. The representation dated 19.4.2001 of the detenu along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the central government on 3.5.2001 vide letter dated 26.4.200t of the State Government order dated 13.3.2001. The matter was duly considered whereafter the representation was rejected on 8.5.2001, the 5th, 6th and 7th day of May, 2001 being holidays, which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government. From eh affidavit of the State Government it is clear that the English version of the representation of the detenu dated 19.42001 addressed to the State Government and the Government of India were received in the Home Department on 23.4.2001along with the parawise comments of the detaining authority. The same were duly considered along with other material and the representation was rejected on 25.4.2001. Thus, it is seen that all the statutory safeguards were taken. Indeed, this aspect was also not specifically challenged at the time of hearing. Accordingly, we need not delve into this aspect of the matter and further.

(3.) TO the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the grounds of detention along with annexures that were served on the petitioner have been collectively annexed as Annexure 2. Each page thereof bears the signature of the detenu which has been attested by the jail authorities. The file of the detaining authority also indicates so. It is, no doubt true that the Oriya translation of the injury reports were not supplied to the detenu but, in our opinion, this cannot be held to be sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. The translated copies of the F.I.R. statement of different witnesses examined and the grounds on which the order of detention was based, have been supplied to the detenu who, therefore, knew as to what was the basis on which the detaining authority formed a subjective satisfaction leadingto the passing of the detention order, and as such, it cannot be said that he was unable to make an effective representation and thereby, his valuable constitutional right was affected. Learned counsel was also not able to point out as to what was the prejudice, if any, caused to the detenu by not being supplied with the Oriya translation of the injury reports.