ANIL SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Anil Samal while in judicial custody in connection with G.R. Case No. 127 of 2004 was served with an order of detention issued under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') on 3.12.2005. The grounds of detention were also served upon the petitioner along with the order of detention. On receiving the order of detention, the petitioner made a representation to the Government of Orissa on 19.12.2005. The Advisory Board constituted under the Act opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner under the Act. The Government of Orissa by order dated 1.2.2006 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner confirmed the said order of detention. The Union Government by letter dated 18.1.2006 also rejected the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus challenging the order of detention and the rejection of his representation by the State Government as well as the Central Government.

(2.) MR . R.K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order of detention cannot be sustained in law for the reasons that the said order has been passed mechanically and there is absolutely no iota of material to show that it was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as has been stated in the order of detention under Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Mr. Rath further contended that though a representation was made by the petitioner against the order of detention on 19.12.2005 but the same having been disposed of on 1.2.2006, i.e. about 43 days after the filing of the representation and there being no explanation rendered for the delay in disposal of the said representation, that itself is a ground to quash the order of the Government of Orissa confirming the order of detention of the petitioner. The other limb of the argument of Mr. Rath was that the rejection of the representation by the Central Government on 19.1.2006 ex -facie shows non -application of mind on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Central Government submitted that the repeated involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities clearly shows that such action on the part of the petitioner was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order for which the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Central Government.