MAHESH BASUMATARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention of the petitioner made by order dated 18.6.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Kokrajhar under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been put to challenge in the present writ application. The aforesaid order of detention has been approved by the State Government on 23.6.2004 and the representations filed by the petitioner-detenu to the State Government as well as to the Central Government have been rejected. The Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of the Act has also recommended the detention of the petitioner and on the basis of the opinion rendered by the Advisory Board, the State Government has confirmed the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) We have heard Mr. P. Goyari, learned counsel for the petitioner- detenu, Shri S. Ali, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Smri G. Deka as well as Mr. H. Rahman, learned Sr. CGSC.

(3.) Three contentions in the main have been advanced by Mr. P. Goyari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenu in support of the challenge made. The learned counsel has argued that notwithstanding the recital made in the grounds of detention to the effect that a copy of the FIR, Seizure List, copies of the Statement are furnished to the detenu, the detenu was not served with any of the aforesaid documents. The aforesaid fact, it is urged, was pointed out in the representations filed by the detenu to the State Government and Central Government. As the aforesaid documents have been relied upon in reaching the satisfaction that the detention of the petitioner is necessary, non-furnishing of the same has vitiated the right of the petitioner-detenu to file an effective representation against his detention as guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the detention of the petitioner is contended to be vitiated in law. Next, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the detention order and the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenu in English language with which the detenu is not conversant and proficient. The detenu, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had sought for translated copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention, which were not furnished to him. The detention is, therefore, contended to be vitiated on the aforesaid score. Lastly, it has been contended that the representation dated 24.6.2004 filed by the petitioner against his detention was disposed of by the State Government on 13.7.2004 and detenu was communicated the order of rejection on 14.7.2004. The representation to the Central Goverment filed on the same date i.e. 24.6.2004 was also rejected by the Central Government on 16.8.2004 and a communication to the aforesaid effect was sent to the detenu by WT Message dated 17.8.2004. In both the cases, there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the petitioner's representations thereby vitiating the detention of the petitioner.