DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.5.2001 whereby a proceeding under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) was initiated and the petitioner was directed to be detained under Section 3(2) of the Act, Annexure-3, the order dated 19.5.200 1 whereby the order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act, Annexure-3, the order dated 19.5.2001. whereby the order of detention has been approved by the Government, Annexure 2 and also the order dated 24.7.200 1, Annexure 1, the final order under Sections 12(1) & 13 of the Act whereby the petitioner has been directed to be detained till 9.5.2002.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai submitted a report to the District Magistrate, respondent No. 4, for initiating a proceeding against him under the Act. Respondent No. 4 initiated the proceeding and directed to detain the petitioner under the Act, Annexure 3. The order of detention, Annexure 3, was approved by the Government of Bihar vide order, Annexure 2. The petitioner filed representation on 10.5.2001. The said representation was rejected on 19.6.2001. The final order under Sections 12(2) & 13 of the Act was passed to detain the petitioner for one year i.e. till 9.5.2002, Annexure 1. The order of detention has been challenged on the ground that there, was unexplained delay in disposing of the representation.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In the counter-affidavit the averment made in the writ petition has been denied. In para 17 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was present before the Advisory Board and his representation and concerned papers were placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board having gone through the representation filed by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner was pleased to approve the order of detention passed against the petitioner. In para 18 it has been stated that the order of rejection of the representation was communicated vide letter dated 18.6.2001 to the petitioner by the Jail Superintendent, Begusarai and as such the mandatory provision has been complied with.