RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition for a writ of habeas corpus tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitionees challeng his detention U/s. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of N. S. A.)

(2.) AS per averments disclosed in the petition, he is a resident of village Saledakala P. S. Chechat, District Kota. In pursuance to the order of the District Magistrate dated March 26, 1989 passed U/s. 3 (2) and (3) of the Act, he was arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Kota on the same day. The grounds of detention Annexure-1 dated March 23, 1989 were served on him on the same day. The order of his detention was approved by the State Government U/s. 3 (4) of the Act on 31. 3. 1989. The matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause of the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter passed order Annexure R/2 on 29-4-1989 and fixed the period of 12 months U/s. 13 of the Act. This order was also communicated to the petitioner on 4-5-1989. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Secretary, Home Ministry of the State on 30. 5. 1989 and submitted it to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota to transmit it to the authority addressed therein. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota by the letter Annexure-3 dated 30. 5 1989 sent the detenu's representation to the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the State Government. The petitioner also addressed another representation to the Central Government on the same day and submitted it to the Superintendent, Central Jail Kota who sent it to the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the State Government by his letter Annexure-4. The detention is challenged on the following two grounds amongst others:- (1) the grounds of detention have no rational or nexus with the maintenance of public! order and (2) the representations sent by the petitioner have not been considered and decided till the filing of the writ petition on 14. 6. 1989-

(3.) IT was strenuously contended by Mr. Gupta that petitioner submitted his representation to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota on 30. 5. 1989 to be transmitted to the Secretary, Home Ministry of the State. The Superintendent, Central Jail in his turn sent it on the same day on 30 5. 1989 to the State Govt. where it was received either on 2. 6. 1989 or 3. 6. 1989. The State Govt. slept over the matter and passed an order only on 17. 6. 1989 directing the District Magistrate, Kota to send his comments. The comments of the District Magistrate were received on 23-6-89. The representation still then was not decided and it was finally rejected on 8. 7. 89. IT was argued that the first delay between 3. 6. 89 and 17. 6. 89 and the second delay between 23. 6. 89 and 8. 7. 89 have not been explained by the respondents. The State Government slept over the whole matter and decided the representation only after this writ petition was filed on 14-6-89. IT was argued that Article 22 (5) of the Constitution gives a right to the detenu to make a representation against his detention under the detention law. IT necessarily follows from article 22 (5) that the representation should be considered and disposed of expeditiously without delay. If the delay is there, it should be explained. IT was argued that the unexplained delay is fatal and makes the further detention to the detenu illegal. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1 ).