BABA ALIAS RAHAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus has been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench in view of the plea that the representation of the petitioner was dealt with by the Chief Minister in a routine manner indicating non -application of mind as held in paragraphs of the judgment in Sk. Samsa alias Sk. Samsuddin v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2001) 20 OCR 468, 2001 (I) OLR 274 and hence the detention was bad in law. The Division Bench found in the present case that none of the other contentions raised by the detenu by way of challenge to the order of detention made under the National Security Act, 1980 was sustainable. Since the Division Bench found it difficult to agree with the rather wide observations in the above case, the case was referred to a Full Bench for decision.

(2.) THE argument was raised that the representation made by the detune was rejected by the Chief Minister without application of mind. The fact that in the concerned file the Chief Minister affixed his signature without specifically recording any conclusion was relied on in support. The observations in Sk. Samsa v. State of Orissa and Ors., (2001) 20 OCR 468, 2001 (1) OLR 274 to the effect 'Further, it appears that the Chief Minister, except putting his initial, has neither accepted the suggestion made by the Secretary to reject the representation nor made any endorsement to that effect. Therefore, we hold that the representation was dealt with in a routine manner and the mandate of Article 22(5) read with Section 8 of the Act was not kept in mind while disposing of the representation in as much as the delay from 13.2.2000 to 18.2.2000 remains unexplained' were relied upon.

(3.) THE statement of the Division Bench as above quoted is unexceptionable. In fact, on going through the decision in Sk. Samsa v. State of Orissa, (2002) 20 OCR 468, 2001 (I) OLR 274, it is seen that the period of detention in that case has run out when the question came up for consideration. It is seen that the observation about the noting bearing the signature of the Chief Minister was only made in the context of the finding that there was unexplained delay while disposing of the representation made by the petitioner. It is not an adjudication that every time the Chief Minister merely signed the file in token of acceptance of the proposal made therein without recording anything on his own, there is non -application of mind by the Chief Minister. In this situation, all that is required is to clarify that if the file discloses that the relevant aspects were brought to the notice of the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister had affixed his signature at the foot of the submission made in token of accepting the suggestion contained therein, it is clearly a case of application of mind by the Chief Minister. The rather general observations in Samsa's case are thus clarified.