ARNAPURNA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an order dated August 24, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Puri (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority'), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3, sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') Narayan Sahoo alias Narua (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), a resident of Puri, who was already in custody with effect from 14-8-2000 in connection with Puri P. S. Case No. 141 dated August 14, 2000 was detained with a view to prevent him from committing further criminal activities. The mother of the detenu has filed this writ challenging the grounds of detention and praying to issue a writ of Habeas-Corpus declaring the detention to be illegal, unconstitutional and to quash the order of detention.

(2.) The order of detention which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application clearly catalogues a series of violent activities said to have been committed by the detenue which created a tremor of terror in the minds of peace loving people of the locality. The grounds of detention dated August 26, 2000 both in English and Oriya languages were communicated to the detenu on August 28, 2000 vide Annexure-2. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 approved the detention order dated August 24, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Puri on September 9, 2000 (Annexure-3).

(3.) It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the detenu on September 4, 2000 submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Jail, Puri along with copies for being transmitted to the Central Government, the Home Department of the State Government etc. In the representation, the detenu emphatically denied all the charges levelled against him. At the same time, it is stated that as he does not know reading and writing English, vernacular translated copies of all the materials relied upon should be supplied to him. It is further alleged that as no action was taken the detenu submitted a second representation on 15-9-2000 which has also remained unattended.