LIPIKA ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of detection dated 10.4.99 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhubri in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 cf the National Security Act, 1980, has been assailed in this Habeas Corpus petition. The detenu Shri Prasanta Kumar Roy @ Jitu Sankar @ Samsul Haque @ Jayanta Singh was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Dhubri in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the aforesaid order. The order of detention states that the above order is passed with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. At the time of his detention the detenu was lodged at Dhubri Jail in connection with number of criminal cases against the detenu. The grounds of detention as required under the law were furnished to the detenu. The detenu submitted his representation to the State Government on 26.4.1999 through the Superintendent of District Jail, Dhubri. The detenu in his representation raised numerous grounds of attack against his order of detention. In the affidavit of the Respondent No. 1 the State of Assam and the Respondent No. 4 the Superintendent of District Jail, Dhubri it was stated that on the same day the Respondent No. 4 forwarded the representation to the Government by registered post. The representation reached the State Government on 3.5.99. The representation was finally rejected by the appropriate authorities on 12th May, 1999. The formal notification of the rejection of the representation was issued on 14.5.99. The State Government also forwarded a copy of the representation to the Central Government by Speed Post on 4.5.99 which was also rejected by the Central Government on 4.6.99.

(2.) On behalf of the detenu Mr D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate has raised various grounds of attack against the order of detention. The counsel very strenuously urged that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and suffers from the vice of non- application of mind. The counsel further urged that there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu and as such there has been a breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Mr Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel urged that the detention order is liable to be struck down on this short ground alone.

(3.) The Respondents on the other hand, pleaded and contended that the detenu as a member of ULFA, an organisation declared as unlawful, indulged in violent activities and directly involved in bomb explosions, killing of police personnels and others. The Respondents also urged that the full particulars regarding date, time and place and a few of the instance of anti-national activities were clearly cited in the grounds of detention. The respondents further stated that respondents were fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody at the time of passing of the detention order and despite that the said order of detention was passed keeping in mind all aspects of the matter.