BUNTY @ AYUSHMAN PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of detention is challenged by the detenu -petitioner in this writ petition urging various facts and legal contentions with a prayer to quash the order of detention and direct the opposite parties to set him at liberty forthwith. The brief facts and the rival and legal contentions urged are stated with a view to examine and find out as to whether the detention is liable to be quashed or not?

(2.) THE District Magistrate, Sambalpur, Opposite party No.2 in exercise of powers conferred under ,Section 3 (2) of the National Security (hereinafter called in short 'the Act') has passed the order of detention vide order dated 10.7.2012. The said order was served on the detenu while he was in judicial custody in connection with certain criminal cases. After the order of detention was passed under Annexure -1, the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on 12.7.2012 by opposite party No.2. In the grounds of detention, it has been specifically stated that the detaining authority was satisfied from the events narrated in the grounds of detention and with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order has passed the order of detention. In the grounds of detention, strong reliance has been placed on seven criminal cases which we would advert later. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were illegible which caused a hindrance for making effective representation to the authorities, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Further case of the petitioner is that the order of detention was approved by the State Government vide order dated 18.7.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(4) of the Act. It is stated that when the order of detention was approved by the State Government, it was incumbent upon the State Government to the Central Government together with the grounds of detention within seven days as provided under Sub -section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, but it has not done so, the same is not reported in time and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated in law. The Central Government has not passed any order under Section 14 of the Act to consider the revocation of the order of detention. It is the case of the petitioner that the detention order has been passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the Act which says that the power can only be conferred with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. But there is no materials to show that the State Government has conferred show power on the District Magistrate and the power conferred on the District Magistrate is based upon no materials.

(3.) FURTHER case at the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner dated 30.07.2012 submitted to the Central Government was disposed of and rejected on 29.8.2012. The order of detention was confirmed without examining and considering the tenable explanation given by the petitioner to the Central Government. It is submitted that there has been undue and unexplained delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the decision of the Supreme Court. It is further stated that the State Government has also passed the order of confirmation on 14.8.2012 after delay of 15 days which has vitiated the order of detention as the same is in violation of procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K.Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Ors, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1861 wherein there was 28 days delay on the part of the Central Government in the aforesaid case between the receipt and disposal of the representation of the detenu after examining the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, and the Apex Court has held the delay in disposal of the representation to be unreasonable and the explanation sought to be given in that case was held to be unsatisfactory. Mr. R.K.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State Government sought to distinguish the said judgment by placing reliance upon paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. It is stated that satisfactory explanation has been offered by the State Government to show the circumstances in which the order of detention is passed in exercise of its power under Section 3(4) of the Act. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Asst. Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government has placed reliance upon paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 29.8.2012 as it was received by it on 14.8.2012.