VIKASH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the right of representation contended, in terms, by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution and equally by Section 17(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, in part materia therewith can be extended to any and every friend or relation of the detenu (inevitably with the mandatory strictitude of an expeditious decision on such represenation) is the core question in this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) THE relevant facts deserve notice only within the narrow confines of the issue aforesaid which alone was debated before us. Vikash Chandra Mishra, the writ petitioner, was directed to be detained by the order dated the 27th of July, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate of Saharsa in exercise of his power under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the 'Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The aforesaid order of detention was duly approved by the State Government (vide its order dated the 6th of August, 1983) and in pursuance thereof the writ petitioner was arrested on the 11th of August, 1983 and was served with a copy of the said order as well as the grounds of detention in the District Jail, Saharsa. On the petitioner's own showing, he was later produced before the Advisory Board on the 15th of September, 1983 and subsequently (vide annexure 2) it was communicated to him that the State Government had approved the order of his detention and directed that he be so detained till the 11th of August, 1984.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 the factual stand with regard to the anti -social activity of the writ petitioner and the lack of satisfaction of the detaining authority was expressly controverted. It was categorically stated that the writ petitioner never filed any representation on the 15th of August, 1983 through the Superintendent, Jail, and this allegation was false and consequently no question of any decision on the said representation at all arose. However, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it was indicated that merely a representation was filed by the father of the petitioner, which, after careful consideration, was rejected by the respondent State and the same was communicated to the father of the petitioner by letter No. 11816 dated the 17th of November, 1983.