BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 places a limit of three months on the period of detention which can be ordered by the District Magistrate, or is merely a limitation on the period for which the delegation of the power of detention by the State Government can at one time be made to the District Magistrate? Whether the provisions of S. 3 pertaining to externment are equally attracted by way of analogy to the cases of detention under S. 12 of the Act? These are the two significant questions necessitating this reference to the Division Bench in this criminal Writ Petition directed against the detention of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a 3rd Year student of the Bihar College of Engineering. He was taken in custody whilst the was on dharna in the college premises and was served with the grounds of detention and the detention order passed by the District Magistrate of Patna on the 21st of September, 1984 in jail. The matter having been expeditiously placed before the State Government, the detention was approved by it on the 27th Sept., 1984 which was duly served on the petitioner on the 29th Sept., 1984. The petitioner sought to make grievance about the grounds of detention enumerated in the order (Annexure 2) and submitted his representation against his detenion on the 16th of October, 1984 which was duly considered by the authorities and rejected on the 13th of November, 1984. On his own showing, the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on the 6th of November, 1984 and a grievance is made that the decision of the said Board has not been served upon him. It is, however, common ground that the Advisory Board in its opinion approved the petitioner's detention and thereafter in exercise of the powers under Ss. 21 and 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') the State Government has confirmed the earlier detention order dt 18th Sept., 1984 directing the petitioner's detention till the 18th Sept 1985 which was served upon the petitioner.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 detailed averments have been made with regard to the expeditious processing of the case against the petitioner after complying with the formalities of law. Culminating in the order of the Chief Minister dt. 13th Nov., 1984 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the order of detention (annexure 7) directing his detention till the 18th of September, 1985. The allegations of the petitioner that his representation was not placed before the Advisory Board and the matter was not duly considered by the authorities are stoutly controverted. A virtually identical stand has been taken on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the affidavit filed on his behalf.