Ashok Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P.and Others

The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 1581997 passed against him by the District Magistrate, RaeBareli, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. At the time when the detention order was passed the petitioner was in jail and it was served on him on the same date.

The order was passed on two grounds which need not be mentioned because the petition succeeds otherwise and the learned Counsel for the petitioner also confined his arguments that there has been delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner both by the State Government as well as the Central Government.

It is not disputed that the petitioner made a representation dated 2681997, both to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. It was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 2781997. The District Magistrate sent this representation of the petitioner after obtaining comments of the Superintendent of Police by means of his letter dated 991997 to the State Government which was received in the State Secretariat on 1291997. The first noting in the file was done in the State Secretariat on 1891997 whereafter it was sent to the Special Secretary (Home) on 1991997 who sent it to the Chief Secretary on 2091997 who rejected it on the same day and an intimation of rejection was communicated to the detenu through the Superintendent, District jail, RaeBareli, on 2391997.

From the above, it is clear that the District Magistrate kept the representation of the petitioner with him from 2781997 to 1291997, i.e., for more than two weeks before he sent it to the State Government. No explanation for this delay has been furnished by the District Magistrate except by saying that he called for the comments of the Superintendent of Police. It is not disclosed when these comments were received by the District Magistrate. It is surprising to find that the District Magistrate''s letter dated 991997 was received in the State Secretariat on 1291997 when all these days were working days. RaeBareli is at a distance of less than 80 kilometers from Lucknow and this letter ought to have been sent through Special Messenger. There is no explanation why it took three days to reach the letter of the District Magistrate in the State Secretariat. Apart from this there has been delay on the part of the State Government also after it was received. The representation of the petitioner in the State Secretariat was received on 1291997 and the first noting was done on 1891997, i.e. after a lapse of six days.

So far as the disposal of the petitioner''s representation by the Central Government is concerned, it is not a different story. The counteraffidavit filed by Mr. Rohtas Singh, under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, shows that the representation of the petitioner, dated 2681997 was received on 1991997 through the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli. It again shows the callousness with which the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, treated this matter. The Government of India is said to have asked for some comments from the State Government by means of wireless message dated 2491997 but the State Government seems to have slept over the matter and did not respond. Ultimately the Government of India took up the representation of the petitioner for consideration without comments of the State Government and the Deputy Secretary submitted it to the Joint Secretary on 7101997. The Joint Secretary put up the file^ before the Minister of State (Home), Government of India, on 8101997. The Minister of State for Home Affairs rejected the representation of the petitioner on 16101997. Thus the representation of the petitioner also remained pending at the stage of Minister of Home Affairs for about a week. In any case the representation dated 2681997 made by the petitioner to the Central Government came to be disposed of by it on 15101997, i.e. after a gap of a little less than two months, causing considerable delay and there by violating the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution.

In view of the above it follows that the continued detention of the petitioner is rendered illegal. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case.

A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the State Government for appropriate action against the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, for causing considerable delay in forwarding the forwarding the representation of the petitioner, both to the State Government as well as the Central Government. Petition allowed.