Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 52 (ORI)

RAJAN SANYASI v. STATE OF ORISSA

1996-02-12

C.R.PAL, R.K.PATRA

body1996
R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution assails his detention made pursuant to the order dated 25-3-1995 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Sundergarh in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detention Act' ). ( 2 ) THE sole point urged by Shri Ray is that the representations of the petitioner were not expeditiously disposed of by the State Government and the Central Government and, as such, his continued detention is illegal. Law is now well settled that the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention should be considered by the State Government and/or Central Government with reasonable despatch and diligence. The constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the detenu's representation has been spelt out from Clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. The right to have his representation considered at the earliest flows from the constitutional guarantee of the right to personal liberty. In absence of provision prescribing any specified period of time for disposal of representation either in the Constitution or in the Detention Act, the question whether the representation made by the detenu has been dealt at the earliest, i. e. with reasonable despatch and dilisence is to be decided by careful consideration of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. That is the reason why Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Frances Coralie Mullin v. W. C. Khambra, AIR 1980 SC 849 : (1980 Cri LJ 548) observed that "the time-imperative can never be absolute or obsessive". In Smt. L. M. S. Umma Saleema v. B. B. Gujaral, AIR 1981 SC 1191 : (1981 Cri LJ 889), the learned Judge clarified the position and stated the law as follows (Para 7) :". . . . . . The occasional observations made by this Court that each day's delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a magical formula, the slightest breach of which must result in the release of the detenu. Law deals with the facts of life. In law, as in life, there are no invariable absolutes. . . . . . Law deals with the facts of life. In law, as in life, there are no invariable absolutes. . . . . . "on scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case if it is found that there was any remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the concerned authority in dealing with the representation and the explanation offered by the concerned authority in that regard is not satisfactory, it would have the effect of vitiating the order of detention. ( 3 ) IN the light of the aforesaid, let us consider the facts of the case at hand. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted representation on 29-4-1995 to the State Government as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention. The District Magistrate in his letter dated 30-4-1995 at annexure F/2 sent the representation to the State Government. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, it is averred that the representation was received from the District Magistrate on 4-5-1995. Subsequently, the District Magistrate sent his parawise comments on the representation in his letter No. 475/c dated 19-5-1995 which was received by the Government on 24-6-1995. On the same day it was put up by the Section for orders. On the next day (25-5-1995) the Secretary of the Home Department submitted the file for orders of the State Government and the Chief Minister passed the order rejecting the representation on the same day. The order rejecting representation was communicated in Home Department Memo No. 3183/c dated 29-5-1995. ( 4 ) IT would appear from the facts indicated above that the concerned District Magistrate sent the representation dated 29-4-1995 to the State Government on 30-4-1995 and he submitted his parawise comments on the representation on 19-5-1995 which reached the Government on 24-5-1995. We may note here that in the forwarding letter dated 30-4-1995 (Annexure F/2) the District Magistrate had written that "parawise comments on the representation are being sent shortly". Having given such assurance, he sent the parawise comments however on 19-5-1995. There is no explanation by the District Magistrate for the delay of 19 days in sending his parawise comments. The period of 19 days' is not a short duration to be easily ignored. It shows how the detaining authority took the matter leisurely and lightly. Having given such assurance, he sent the parawise comments however on 19-5-1995. There is no explanation by the District Magistrate for the delay of 19 days in sending his parawise comments. The period of 19 days' is not a short duration to be easily ignored. It shows how the detaining authority took the matter leisurely and lightly. There is also no explanation available as to why the parawise comments took five days to reach the Government at Bhubaneswar. It is needless to emphasise that expeditious disposal of the representation at every stage is essential. The aforesaid undue delay of 24 days caused further hindrance for expeditious disposal of the representation by the Government. It is a clear case of exhibiting indifference on the part of the detaining authority/state Government in dealing with the representation. For the aforementioned reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that due to undue delay in consideration of the representation, the petitioner's continued detention is vitiated. ( 5 ) SHRI Ray also submitted that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation. We find sufficient force in the submission. The representation dated 29-4-1995 addressed to the Central Government for revoking the order of detention was forwarded by the concerned District Magistrate on 30-4-1995 to the State Government for onward transmission to the Central Government. It reached the State Government on 4-5-1995. The State Government forwarded the same to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 8-5-1995. It was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12-5-1995. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government that "certain vital information required for its further consideration needed to be obtained from the State Government through a crash wireless message dated 15-5-1995 and subsequent wireless reminder dated 29-5-1995". Complete information was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2-6-1995 vide State Government wireless message dated 31-5-1995. After receipt of the said information, the case of the petitioner was put up before the Deputy Secretary, of Home Affairs on 2-6-1996 who put up the matter with his comments before the Joint Secretary on 5-6-1995. Thereafter it was put up before the Special Secretary on 5-6-1996 who put it before the Home Minister on 6-6-1996. After receipt of the said information, the case of the petitioner was put up before the Deputy Secretary, of Home Affairs on 2-6-1996 who put up the matter with his comments before the Joint Secretary on 5-6-1995. Thereafter it was put up before the Special Secretary on 5-6-1996 who put it before the Home Minister on 6-6-1996. The Home Minister considered the case and rejected the representation on 9-6-1995. From the narration of chain of events stated above, it transpires that the State Government took four days to simply forward the representation to the Central Government. There was further delay of 16 days at the level of the State Government in sending the required information to the Central Government. No explanation has been offered by the State Government for the delay referred to above. This has resulted in non-disposal of the representation at the earliest by the Central Government. On this ground also, the continued detention of the petitioner has become illegal and we declare so. ( 6 ) IN the result, the impugned order of detention (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained which is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ( 7 ) C. R. PAL, J. , I agree. Petition allowed.