LAXMAN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Laxman Choudhary has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of detention dated 29.11.1999, as contained in Annexure-2, passed by the State Government under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby and whereunder the detention order of the District Magistrate, Siwan, dated 17.11.1999, as contained in Annexure 1 has been approved. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have also perused the writ petition and counter-affidavit. Therefore, this writ application is disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) As would appear from the facts on record, the District Magistrate having regard to the criminal activities of this petitioner is some of the cases, detained him under Section 12(2) of the Act vide order dated 17.11.1999 which was approved by the State Government by order dated 29.11.1999 with an opportunity to the detenu-petitioner to file a representation against the order of detention, if any. The said order was served to the petitioner on 4.12.1999 and on the same day, as it has been stated in the writ petition, he filed a representation, a copy of which is Annexure-3. This writ petition was filed an 15.2.2000 with a grievance, although the petitioner filed a representation on 4.12.1999 but the same was not yet disposed of.

(3.) It appears from the order-sheet of this case that having appreciated the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, on 16.2.2000, the Court directed the State Government to file a counter-affidavit so that the matter could be disposed of. On 2.3.2000, since no counter-affidavit was filed, therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the State, three weeks' time was further granted. Similar was the position on the next date i.e. 27.3.2000 and again the case was adjourned to 30.3.2000 at the request of the learned counsel for the State. Ultimately, on 30.3.2000 itself, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 giving details of the criminal cases in which this petitioner was charge- sheeted. It was also stated that having regard to the petitioner's criminal and anti-social activities, which had become a menace for public order at large, such steps were taken. With respect to the main grievance of the petitioner regarding non-disposal of the representation, of course, a vague statement was made that the same was already rejected by the State Government.