Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 892 (PAT)

Sahdeo Rai v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-20

B.N.P.SINGH, R.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. A proceeding under the Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981 was initiated by the District Magistrate, respondent no. 5, on the report of the Superintendent of Police, respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 5 in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crime Act, 1981 passed order on 16.5.2001. Annexure 1, directing that the petitioner be detained. The ground of detention was also furnished to the petitioner. The order of detention was approved by the competent authority vide letter dated 22.5.2001, Annexure-7. The petitioner filed representation on 23.5.2001 and also second representation on 7.6.2001. The said representations were rejected and communication was made vide letter dated 15.6.2001, Annexure-8. Subsequently the detention of the petitioner was confirmed and the petitioner was directed to be detained till 15.5.2002 vide letter dated 19.7.2001, Annexure-9. The petitioner thus has filed the writ petition for quashing the orders of detention, Annexures-1 & 9, mainly on the ground that there was undue unexplained delay in disposal of the representations. 2. Two counter-affidavits have been filed, one by respondent nos. 2 to 4 and another by respondent no. 5. 3. It appears from the counter-affidavits filed by different respondents that they have denied the claim of the petitioner. However, no explanation has been furnished in either of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents with respect to delay in disposal of the representations. It has simply been said that the claim of the petitioner is denied. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides for allowing the earliest opportunity to file representation. In the instant case, the representation was filed by the petitioner on 23.5.2001. The said representation was disposed of on 15.6.2001 i.e. after more than three weeks that too without any explanation of such delay in disposal of representation as indicated above. In the case of Saleh Mohammad V/s. Union of India & ors., A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court-111, the delay in disposal of the representation was more than three weeks. The Apex Court, in the circumstances, set aside the detention order on the ground that it is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid case is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Thus, on consideration, I find that the order of detention cannot be held to be legal. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The aforesaid case is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Thus, on consideration, I find that the order of detention cannot be held to be legal. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The orders, Annexure-1 & 9, are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith.