FAKRUDDIN ALI AHMAD FAKRU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 10.5.1999, passed by the District Magistrate, Siwan in exercise of power under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to be as the Act) as well as the order dated 18.5.99, passed by the State Government approving the said order of detention in exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act and the order dated 7th July, 1999, passed by the State Government, confirming the aforesaid order of detention. Copies of the said orders have been made Annexures 5, 8 and 9 respectively.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the District Magistrate, Siwan being satisfied that the petitioner is an anti social element and his activity cannot be prevented otherwise by his immediate arrest, passed an order of detention with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were also served upon the petitioner. The said order of detention was approved by the State Government under Section 12(3) within the statutory period on 18.5.99. On 30th May, 1999, the petitioner filed a representation after receipt of the grounds asserting therein that even if the entire allegations as contained in the grounds of detention be accepted, the petitioner is not an anti social element as defined under the Act and as such, his detention is impermissible in law. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee had opined that the detention of the petitioner was valid and thereafter the State Government confirmed the order of detention on 7th July, 1999 in exercise of power under Section 21(1) of the Act and fixed the period of detention up to 9.5.2000 under Section 22 of the Act. The representation filed by the petitioner was also rejected on 7th July, 1999 and the same was communicated to the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was found indulged in several cases of serious nature and as such he was an anti social element as defined under the Act and the District Magistrate, after being satisfied about the grounds, had passed the order of detention. He also submitted that there was no delay in disposal of the representation and as such, there was no violation of the constitutional right as well as the statutory rights as urged on behalf of the petitioner.