SATYASAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of powers conferred on him, under S. 3(z) of the National Security Act, 1980, (in short, 'the Act') the District Magistrate, Kalahandi passed an order on 13-11-2000 that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') be detained. Accordingly, he was taken into custody on 14-11-2000. Aggrieved therewith, the detenu has filed this writ petition challenging the order of detention and his continued detention under the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated thus :In connection with Bhaganipatna Town P.C. Case No. 138 dated 17-10-2000 under Ss. 307/34, I.P.C. the detenu was taken into custody the same day and was forwarded to the Court on 18-10-2000. on the basis of a confidential report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi, the District Magistrate, Kalahandi being of the opinion and on being satisfied that in order to maintain public order, it was necessary to detain the detenu, an order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Kalahandi on 13-11-2000. the copy of the said order in Oriya and English was served on the detenu on 14-11-2000 and he knowledged receipt thereof by appending his signature on a copyof the said order. Intimation that he was taken on detention was also served on his mother the same day (14-11-2000) and she acknowledged receipt thereof by appending her signature on a copy of the said letter. The grounds of detention in Oriya and English along with material documents which were taken into consideration by the District Magistrate in coming to a subjective satisfaction were also served on the detenu on 14-11-2000 as is clear from the signature of the detenu which is attested by the Sub-Assistant Jailor. A report in terms of S. 3(4) of the Act was also sent to the Government on 14-11-2000. The order was approved by the State Government on 20-11-2000 and the order of approval was served on the detenu on 21-11-2000 which was duly acknowledged by him. The State Government in terms of S. 3(5) of the Act sent a report to the Central Government on 21-11-2000 which was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 30-11-2000. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board which held its meeting on 18-12-2000. The detenu was heard in person. The Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The State Government on a consideration of the report and all the material that were placed before it, confirmed the order of detention on 2-1-2001 and this order was duly served on the detenu in District Jail, Bhawanipatna on 10-2-2001.It appears from the record of the District Magistrate and also the State Government that after confirmation of the order of detention, the detenu on 1-2-2001 submitted six representation/petitions addressed to the Governor, Orissa, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Orissa, Secretary, Home, Government of India and Members of the N.S.H. Board etc. On receiving the same, the District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the State Government on 2-2-2001. Since one of the representations was addressed to the Advisory Board, the State Government forwarded that some to the Board which was placed before it (Board) on 15-2-2001. The Board considered the same and opined that since on a reference being made to it, it had given an opinion on 21-12-2000 that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu there was no scope for the Board to consist the representation made to it subsequent to its opinion dated 21-12-2000. On receiving the report, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the same on 12-2-2001.As is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India, the report in terms of S. 3(5) of the Act sent to it on 21-11-2000 was received by it is in the concerned Ministry on 30-11-2000. The representation of the detenu dated 1-2-2001 was forwarded to it by the State Government on 5-2-2001 was received by it i.e., the Central Government on 14-2-2001. After duly examining/considering the material, the Union Government did not find any good ground to revoke the order of detention and it accordingly, rejected the representation on 19-2-2001 (17-2-2001 and 18-2-2001 being third Saturday and Sunday). The fact of rejection was duly communicated to the detenu through a wireless message dated 20-2-2001. The above facts are clear from the record of the District Magistrate and also of the State Government.

(3.) The order of detention is challenged on the grounds that (i) the order under S. 3(2) of the Act was not served on the detenu; (ii) the grounds of detention were served late, i.e., on 25-11-2000; (iii) the facts of the detenu's representation dated 12-12-2000 to the Advisory Board was not intimated to the detenu; (iv) the representation dated 1-2-2001 was not disposed of; (v) the ground on which the detenu was detained relates to law and order and not to public order; (vi) the statutory safeguard and the requirement of Ss. 3(4) and 3(5) of the Act were not fulfilled; and (vii) all the relevant material including his representation were not placed before the Advisory Board for consideration.