SUBRATA PAUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (briefly 'nsa') by virtue of order dated 29. 08. 2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati under Memo No. X/2006/nsa/48/ca (A) and also order dated 11. 10. 2006 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department under Memo. No. PLA. 459/06/279, confirming the detention for a period of 12 months (Annexures-A and E respectively ).

(2.) WE have heard Mr. P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. C. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1 and Ms. B. Goyal, learned state counsel representing respondents 2 to 6.

(3.) THE detention order has been basically challenged on the ground of long delay in considering and rejecting the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay and latches committed by the respondents in considering the representation has infringed fundamental rights of the detenu enshrined under articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. To justify inordinate delay in considering the representation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to certain relevant dates and correspondences that took place between different authorities.