SHEO DANI PATEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been detained in preventive custody by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur vide order dated 3o.4.2003 under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The detention was approved by the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Act and later confirmed by it under Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the said orders and his release from detention.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition in the context of the sub -On service of the grounds of detention along with detention order on or about 30.4.2003 the Petitioner made a representation on 12.5.2003 which was received in the Department i.e. Home (Police) Department on 14.5.2003. The comments of the District Magistrate was received on 15.5.2003. On 19.5.2003 the representation was rejected.

(3.) THE submission of the Counsel as a general proposition is no doubt well founded. As a matter of fact, the decision cited on behalf of the State, namely, K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and Anr. V/s. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 574 : (1991) 1 SCC 476 also more or less takes the same view. While considering the effect Of delay in disposal of representation on account of pendency of the reference before the Advisory Board, therein the Court observed "the representation may be received before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu. The representation may be received after the case of the detenu is referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings." In the right of the law laid down by the Supreme Court it is to be considered as to whether non -forwarding of the representation to the Advisory Board about which there is no dispute at the bar, in the facts of the case, vitiates the Petitioner 's detention.