RAMESH SAHARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 21.7.99 passed by the District Magistrate, Darrang, whereby the detenu Diganta Saharia @ Maina Saharia was directed to be detained under the National Security Act, 1980, for short 'the Act'. hi this case the petitioner has challenged the detention order on the following grounds: (1) delay in transmission of the representation submitted by the detenu; (2) non-application of mind while disposing of the representation.

(2.) Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the clause (3) of the Grounds of Detention, whereby a copy was endorsed to the Superintendent of District Jail. The relevant portion of the direction reads as follows: "The Superintendent of District Jail, Mangaldoi for keeping the detenu as Class-II detenu in his jail custody. He is also requested to send the representation, if submitted by the detenu against this order to the undersigned for further necessary action immediately." Learned counsel has submitted that under the settled law on the subject, the Superintendent, District Jail is required to forward the copy of the representation to the State Govt./Central Govt., directly, as the case may be, and the District Magistrate had no authority to direct otherwise and thereby delay the matter. On perusal of the directions as quoted above, we do not find any direction by the District Magistrate that the representation addressed to the Central Govt. or the State Govt. is required to be routed through District Magistrate. The record produced before us also shows that the copy of representation received by the Superintendent, District Jail was forwarded to the District Magistrate and to the State Govt. separately. We, therefore, find no force in the above submission. Shri Dutta further submitted that in the instant case there was undue delay in transmission of the representation. The admitted facts are that the order of detention was passed on 21.7.99 and the detenu submitted his represertation on 5.9.99 and the District Magistrate forwarded the same to the State Govt. on 9.9.99 along with its parawise comments. In a catena of decisions the Apex Court held that the representation must be considered with due promptitude or expedition and without avoidable delay. At this stage, we would like to re-capitulate the observation of the Apex Court in tihe case of Aslant Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Skaik-Vs-Union of India & Ors. 1989 (3) SCC 277:

(3.) From the affidavit filed by the State Govt. and the Central Govt. it is seen that the representation was forwarded to the Central Govt. by the State authority on 13.9.99. It may be mentioned here that 11th and 12th September, 1999 were holidays on account of 2nd Saturday and Sunday. The Central Govt. received the representation on 17th September and disposed of the same on 20th September, 1999.