Mohammad Alam vs State of U.P. and Others

R.R.K. Trivedi and Naseemuddin, JJ.—We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Anurag Khanna for Respondent No. 3.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18th May, 1998 passed by Respondent No. 2 u/s 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980, under which the Petitioner has been detained. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also challenged the continuous detention of the Petitioner as illegal in view of inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the Petitioner by the Central Government.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that representation was sent on 4th June, 1998 by the Superintendent Jail, Moradabad, which was admittedly received by Central Government on 15th June, 1998. On this representation certain information was required from the State Government by a crash wireless message on 18th June, 1998 and requisite information was received by Central Government on 6th July, 1998. After receiving the information, the representation was processed and considered by various authorities and finally it was put up before the Home Minister on 10th July, 1998. The representation was however rejected on 2nd August, 1998. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that in counter-affidavit, there is no explanation for this long delay and continued detention of the Petitioner has been rendered illegal and he is entitled to be released from detention.

Sri Anurag Khanna learned Counsel for Respondent has not disputed the dates but has submitted that in para 8 of the counter-affidavit, explanation has been given that dates 7th, 11th, 12th, 18th, 19th, 25th, 26th, July, 1998 and 1st and 2nd August, 1998, were holidays and if this period of 9 days is excluded the delay remains only of 13 days which cannot be said to be unreasonable and the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In para 7 of counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, it has been stated that requisite information was received on 6th July, 1998, and after processing representation in the light of the information received, with the comments of Higher authorities, representation was put up before Home Minster on 10th July, 1998. It was rejected on 2nd August, 1998. It could not be disputed that the representation placed before Home Minister with all complete materials and comments and it could be decided within one or two days. However, Home Minister took 22 days in deciding the representation. Even if explanation given in para 3 that some days were holidays and representation could not be decided, is accepted, there remains delay of 13 days for which there is no explanation. The fact that the representation was decided on 2nd August, 1998, which admittedly was a holiday shows that the representation could be decided even on holidays and explanation given, thus, is not justified. Even if the explanation is accepted, delay of about 13 days, remains unexplained, which rendered Petitioner�s contention illegal, Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1999 (1) JIC 524 (SC) has held that if there is no explanation for even a short delay, the detention is rendered illegal. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above case directed the release of the detenu from detention on account of four days delay which was unexplained. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court mentioned above.

For this reason stated above, this petition is allowed, as continued detention of the Petitioner has been found illegal, the Respondents are directed to set the Petitioner at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case.