RAM BABU SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been detained under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act vide order of the District Magistrate, Begusarai, contained in his Memo No. 580/Legal dated 11.3.2002. The detention has been approved under Section 12(3) of the Act and later confirmed under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the said Act by the State Government vide orders dated 22.3.2002 and 13.5.2002. Copies of the said orders are Annexures 12 and 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders and his release.

(2.) THE order of detention was served on the petitioner while he was in judicial custody in the Begusarai Jail on 11.3.2002 itself. The grounds of detention were served three days after on 14.3.2002. On 24.3.2002 the petitioner submitted his representation. The representation was rejected and the same was communicated to him on 16.4.2002.

(3.) THE submission proceeds on the assumption that the representation was rejected on 16.4.2002 which is not true. From the file of the Home (Special) Department, which was produced by the Standing Counsel at the time of hearing, it appears that the representation was rejected on 6.4.2002 itself. On 16.4.2002 the rejection was communicated. The question is whether the delay of thirteen days can be said to be inordinate so as to vitiate the continued detention of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in one of the cases has held that while a short delay may be fatal, longer delay may not, provided the delay is explained. What is thus really of substance is not the period of delay but the explanation. In the instant case from the above said file of the Home (Special) Department it appears that the representation of the petitioner was received in the Department on 25.3.2002. On 26.3.2002 the office suggested that the comments of the District Magistrate may be obtained. The proposal was approved on 27.3.2002. However the District Magistrate, it appears, on his own sent its comments on 27.3.2002 itself which was received in the Department on 30.3.2002. The representation was dealt with by the Dealing Assistant and the Section Officer on the same day i.e. on 30.3.2002. On 1.4.2002 it was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary. On 2.4.2002 the Home Commissioner submitted his note before the Chief Minister i.e. the Minister incharge, who was pleased to reject the representation, agreeing with the opinion of the Home Commissioner, on 6.4.2002. Though the Chief Minister/Minister Incharge took four days to decide the representation, in the facts and circumstances, the delay cannot be said to be fatal particularly considering that on the whole it took only 13 days to do so. The contention of the counsel accordingly stands rejected.