PADMA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for habeas corpus under Art. 236 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the 'Constitution'), Padma Sahu, mother of Raju alias Raj Kishore Sahu hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') has questioned the order of detention dated 26-11-1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Puri in purported exercise of power under S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, the 'Act').

(2.) Case of petitioner in essence is that because of local dispute, the detenu and his brother Santosh were falsely implicated in a criminal case wherein allegations of assaults on one Sanjaya Kumar Sahu were made. This led to lodging of information at the Police Station. There was no truth in the allegations made and no such incident took place. But with mala fide intention false and implicated reports were given at the police station implicating the detenu. A case under S.110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr. P.C.') was registered against the detenu. Though detenu has been described as anti social with ill reputation in the locality with allegation that he was indulging in large number of criminal and anti social activities, same was the outcome of rivalry and absolutely false. Though detention order was issued, yet no representation could be filed as father of detenu was admitted to the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. Detenu being in custody was unable to collect necessary documents. Petitioner being a lady was unable to prepare the representation on behalf of her son. Though representation was not filed, yet there should have been reference to the Advisory Board. Even though statutory period of seven weeks was over, no decision was taken by the Advisory Board. In essence it is stated that there was non-compliance of statutory requirements. Additionally it has been submitted that the order of detention was passed while detenu was in custody thereby vitiating the same.

(3.) It is to be noted that grounds of detention have not been annexed to the writ petition. State of Orissa represented by Collector, Puri is opp. party No. 1. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government represented by Secretary, Home (Special Section) Department (opp. party No. 2). In the said counter it has been stated that the State Government on perusal of relevant documents including grounds of detention approved detention order by Department order No. 6169/C dated 7-12-1998. The Central Government was also informed about the detention by Department letter No. 6174/C dated 7-12-1998. According to opp. party No. 2, detention order clearly reflects activities of detenu which affected public order. Gruesome acts have been highlighted which affected even tempo of life of the community. Grievance that there was no reference to the Advisory Board in due time is false. Not only case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board, but also he was heard by the Board and after consideration of relevant material the board has opined that detention is legal and valid. In fact, order under S.12(1) of the Act has been passed on 16-1-1999, with due intimation to the detenu. Stand of detenu that no representation could be made is false, as in fact, the representation was made by the detenu on 5-12-1998 has duly been considered by the State Government, and District Magistrate, Puri was informed about the fact of non-acceptance thereof. Detenu has been duly informed about the same.