GAUTAMDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid in the instant petition to the order of detention dated 26.3.2003 passed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, (for short "the Act") and the consequent continuous detention of the petitioner.

(2.) We have heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Choudhury, learned Central Government Standing Counsel and Ms. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the State respondents.

(3.) The bare facts necessary for dealing with the controversy are that the petitioner who was already in jail in connection with other case(s) was served with an order of detention dated 26.3.2003 passed under the Act on the ground that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in the manner prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order. According to the petitioner, though the grounds of detention accompanying the order were vague and devoid of material particulars and further the relevant documents in support thereof had not been furnished to him, he submitted a representation against his detention dated 29.3.2003 before the appropriate authority. Though it has been contended, inter alia, in the petition that the order of detention is not sustainable as it had been passed mechanically and without any application of mind and that his continued detention is not permissible in law as the order of detention had not been approved by the State Government within the time prescribed, the principal grievances is discemable from the petition is with regard to delay in despatch and disposal of his representation by both the State Government as well as the Central Government. The order of confirmation of detention is, however, questioned on the ground that the Advisory Board had failed to forward the relevant records and documents to the Government ofAssam.