ANURAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was detained on 17th Feb., 1995 in pursuance of order (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar. The grounds of detention were supplied on 18th Feb., 1995 and the State Government has confirmed the detention order on 23rd Feb., 1995. It is not necessary to go into the grounds on which the detention has been made because the main question in this case is whether there is delay in deciding the representation made by the detenu petitioner and if so can the detention order said to be illegal on this ground.

(2.) Before coming to the representation it may be stated that this habeas corpus petition was filed/presented on 10th April, 1995. The counsel for the State Government and the counsel for the UOI took notices of the same on 14th April, 1995. The next date fixed in the case was 24th April, 1995 on which date both the counsel for the respondents wanted further time for filing reply. This request was objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the circumstances, two weeks time was allowed. The next date was 8th May, 1995 and when the case was listed before the Bench of which Justice Arun Madan was a party, he made exception. The case then was fixed for 10th May, 1995. On this date the respondents again sought time for filing reply but this was not allowed. However, the reply of state was filed and the same is allowed to be taken on record. The case was fixed for 15th May, 1995 but was not listed on that date and it has been listed today. Today, the learned counsel for the Union of India requested for further time for filing reply on the ground that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration hence, papers could not be sent to the counsel. About three months' time has already been granted to the Union of India for filing of the reply and there is no reason for which further time can be granted in this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dates of the detention and confirmation of the same have already been given above. The petitioner moved a representation on 9th March, 1995 addressing it to the President of India and submitted the same to the Dy. Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Jhalawar. It appears that this was not forwarded as desired and the father of the detenu petitioner sent a telegram to the Collector Jhalwar on 18th March, 1995 and on 21st March, 1995 the representation was forwarded to the President of India and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan. The State Government rejected the representation on 3rd April, 1995. The representation moved to the President of India is still not decided. Nearly two months have passed and no explanation has been furnished for not deciding the same sofar.