RAJAN SANYASI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution assails his detention made pursuant to the order dated 25-3-1995 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Sundergarh in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detention Act').

(2.) The sole point urged by Shri Ray is that the representations of the petitioner were not expeditiously disposed of by the State Government and the Central Government and, as such, his continued detention is illegal. Law is now well settled that the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention should be considered by the State Government and/or Central Government with reasonable despatch and diligence. The constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the detenu's representation has been spelt out from Clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. The right to have his representation considered at the earliest flows from the constitutional guarantee of the right to personal liberty. In absence of provision prescribing any specified period of time for disposal of representation either in the Constitution or in the Detention Act, the question whether the representation made by the detenu has been dealt at the earliest, i.e. with reasonable despatch and dilisence is to be decided by careful consideration of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. That is the reason why Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Frances Coralie Mullin v. W. C. Khambra, AIR 1980 SC 849 : (1980 Cri LJ 548) observed that "the time-imperative can never be absolute or obsessive". In Smt. L.M.S. Umma Saleema v. B. B. Gujaral, AIR 1981 SC 1191 : (1981 Cri LJ 889), the learned Judge clarified the position and stated the law as follows (Para 7) :

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid, let us consider the facts of the case at hand. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted representation on 29-4-1995 to the State Government as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention. The District Magistrate in his letter dated 30-4-1995 at annexure F/2 sent the representation to the State Government. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, it is averred that the representation was received from the District Magistrate on 4-5-1995. Subsequently, the District Magistrate sent his parawise comments on the representation in his letter No. 475/C dated 19-5-1995 which was received by the Government on 24-6-1995. On the same day it was put up by the Section for orders. On the next day (25-5-1995) the Secretary of the Home Department submitted the file for orders of the State Government and the Chief Minister passed the order rejecting the representation on the same day. The order rejecting representation was communicated in Home Department Memo No. 3183/C dated 29-5-1995.