BIKASH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging correctness of the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by opposite party No.3- District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Sambalpur under Annexure-1 in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') directing detention of the petitioner in jail custody on the ground that the said order is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to law and therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner while in jail custody at Sambalpur was served with the order of detention dated 10.04.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the Act in connection with Sambalpur Town PS Case No.57 of 2013. The grounds of detention issued by opposite party No.3 on 11.04.2013 under Annexure-2 were served on the petitioner (detenu) on 12.04.2013 in which the detenu is shown to have been involved in as many as twenty-four criminal cases. The State Government has approved the order of detention on 20.04.2013 in exercise of power conferred on it under Section 3(2) of the Act. On receipt of such grounds of detention, the detenu sent representations to the State Government as well as the Central Government on 29.04.2013 (Annexures- 3 and 4) respectively. On 01.06.2013, the detenu received order No.1379 dated 01.06.2013 intimating him that under Section 10 of the Act his case has been referred to the Advisory Board and after hearing the detenu in person and on careful consideration of the materials placed, the Advisory Board came to a finding that there were sufficient grounds of detention and accordingly upheld the order of detention. On the basis of such opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government has confirmed the order of detention of the detenu. On 19.06.2013, the petitioner received letter No.13536 dated 19.06.2013 (Annexure-6) from the State Government intimating him about rejection of his representation after careful consideration. On 24.06.2013, the detenu again received a wireless message from the Central Government intimating him about rejection of his representation and confirmation of his detention order. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. S.R.Mulia, learned counsel appearing for the detenu vehemently argued that there has been undue and unexplained delay on the part of the State Government as well as the Central Government in dealing with the representation of the detenu, which renders the order of detention invalid. The Odia translated copy of some documents, which have been annexed to the grounds of detention in English language, were not provided to the detenu despite opposite parties knowing fully well that the detenu did not know English language. Thus, due to non-supply of Odia translated copy of those documents the detenu failed to submit an effective representation to opposite parties, which violates Article-22(6) of the Constitution of India. Even if all the allegations made against the detenu are taken to be true, the same did not come within the meaning of public order. There was no necessity to take recourse to National Security Act since law of the land is sufficient to take care of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu in the order of detention. It was further argued that the State Government has confirmed the order of detention without application of mind and the said order has been passed mechanically. The detaining authority has not recorded any reason about the satisfaction that there was likelihood of detenu being released on bail and in absence of such reason the subjective satisfaction being vitiated the order of detention is bad. Grounds of detention show that the detenu has been granted bail in almost all the criminal cases instituted against him and there is apprehension of release on bail in other cases. Apprehension of District Magistrate that in the event the detenu is released on bail, he may continue with his lawless activities affecting public peace and tranquility is purely speculative, without any basis and cogent material, and the same is based on surmises and conjectures. The District Magistrate was influenced by extraneous factor without going through any cogent material; no statement of witness was given to substantiate the allegation made in the FIR annexed to the grounds of detention. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.