SANKAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the legality of the Order Dated 16.7.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur in exercise of power conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing detention of the Petitioner in custody. The case of the Petitioner is that while he was in jail custody the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur on 16.7.2011 & the grounds of detention were served on him on 18.7.2011. The State Government approved the order of detention on 23.7.2011. On receipt of the grounds of detention the Petitioner submitted representation through jail authorities separately to the Advisory Board, the State Government as well as the Central Government on 30.7.2011. The matter was placed before the Advisory Board in compliance of Section 10 of the Act but the Petitioner was intimated on 15.9.2011 that the Advisory Board has confirmed the order of detention. The representation addressed to the State Government on 30.7.2011 was rejected on 24.8.2011 & there was delay of 24 days in rejecting the representation. Similarly the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.7.2011 addressed to the Central Government was rejected on 01.9.2011 & as such there was a delay of 31 days in disposal of the representation. It is also the case of the Petitioner that most of the cases, on the basis of which the impugned order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur, were the subject matter of an earlier order of detention passed by the very same authority on 23.12.2005 & the said order of detention was quashed by this Court in W.P. (CRL) No. 128 of 2006 disposed of on 09.08.2006. It is therefore the case of the Petitioner that the detaining authority while passing the impugned order has not applied her mind.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sambalpur. It is stated therein that the Petitioner was involved in 23 number of criminal cases apart from other antisocial activities & in order to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention dated 16.7.2011 was passed. It is further stated that the order of detention has been passed basing on criminal antecedents, law & order situation & also maintenance of public order in the larger interest of the general public. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that the order of detention has been passed not only basing on criminal cases in which the Petitioner claims to have been acquitted but also taking into consideration of such other cases pending in High Courts & different Courts apart from such other incidents in which the conduct of the Petitioner was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the State Government rejected the representation on 12.9.2011 & a copy of the said order was served on the Petitioner on 15.9.2011. The other averments made in the counter affidavit relate to each individual case on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed.

(3.) Central Government has also filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the representation made to the Central Government was disposed of in time without delay. It is specifically stated that the report envisaged under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the Act made to the Central Government by the State Government on 23.7.2011 was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 01.8.2011. The parawise comments of the detaining authority was received on 24.8.2011 through the State Government by its letter dated 12.8.2011. Identical representation & parawise comments were also received from the detaining authority on 23.8.2011. Both the representation were put before the Home Secretary for consideration on 25.8.2011. The representations were rejected by Order Dated 27.8.2011 & accordingly it is stated that the first representation having been received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 24.8.2011 & the same having been rejected on 27.8.2011, there was no delay in disposal of the representation.