VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the order of detention was passed on the 10th of March, 1995 and approved by the Government on the 20th of March, 1995. It is further stated that the petitioner is a political worker and is also a Professor teaching in a college. The order of detention was never served upon him even though he was available and as stated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition the order was passed with a view to keep the petitioner in check, so that he could not take part in political activities, and whenever the petitioner attempted to take part in political activities, he was threatened with such an order. It is only after this Court issued notice in this writ petition on 9.9.1996 that the authorities have taken steps under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.PC. on the 24th of September, 1996. He submits that in view of the law as laid down by this Court in Shambhu Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1989 PLJR 654) and in Bindeshwari Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1989 PLJR 374) following the Supreme Court decisions, as also a recent Supreme Court decision in Subhash Muljimal Gandhi vs. L. Himingliana and another [1994 (6) SCC 14], the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority becomes suspect, inasmuch as in cases of such delay there could be no genuine satisfaction about any urgency in the matter arising from the belief that if at large the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public order. By order dated 9.9.1996 we had granted two weeks' time to the J.C. to A.A.G. to file a counter affidavit, as prayed for by him. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply within three days thereof and the matter was to be placed for hearing on the 30th of September, 1996. The said order made it clear that no adjournment shall be granted on any ground whatsoever. Even so, no counter affidavit has been filed, but a prayer is made to pass over this matter for the day, so that a counter affidavit may be prepared and sworn today and the same be filed tomorrow in Court. Prayer is allowed. He will serve a copy of the said counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner in course of the day and file the counter affidavit in Court tomorrow, as prayed for.

(2.) PUT up this matter tomorrow under the same heading as prayed for. Order dated 1.10.1996.

(3.) THIS order may be read in continuation of our order dated 30th September, 1996, wherein the facts have been stated.