BABAR ALI @ BABAR MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Superintendent of Police respondent No. 5, submitted a report dated 2.6.2000 to the Collector, respondent No. 4 mentioning the details of the criminal activities of the petitioner including the cases lodged against him for initiating a proceeding under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act stating that the petitioner is in Siwan jail and if he would be released there is chance of public order being adversely affected. On receipt of the report respondent No. 4 initiated a proceeding under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act bearing No. 551 dated 24.6.2000 and the petitioner was detained taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioner is in jail. A copy of the order was served on the petitioner. The petitioner on receipt of the order filed a representation on 2.7.2000 but no order was passed on the said representation. However the order of detention dated 24.6.2000. Annexure 2. passed by respondent No. 4 was approved by the State Government, Annexure 3. Subsequently on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board final order under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act was passed detaining the petitioner for the period of the one year i.e. till 23rd June, 2001 vide order dated 29.8.2000. On the same day the representation of the petitioner was rejected and it was com municated vide letter dated 29.8.2000. Annexure 6. The petitioner has thus, filed this writ application challenging the order of detention.

(2.) Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating details of the action taken against the petitioner. It was also admitted in the counter-affidavit that representation of the petitioner was received on 2.7.2000. On receipt of the representation comment was asked for from the District Magistrate respondent No. 4 which was not sent immediately rather it was sent on 5.8.2000. The meeting of the Advisory Board was to be held on 8.8.2000 and as such no order was passed and the representation of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board concluded that there was sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner and as such while passing final order of detention under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act the representation of the petitioner was also rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that representation of the petitioner filed on 2.7.2000 was rejected on 29th August, 2000 i.e. after 59 days of the filing of the representation. It is violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and as such the order of detention is bad in law, learned Government Advocate reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit with regard to delay in disposal of the representation and submitted that the representation was placed before the Advisory Board, the same could not be disposed of earlier.