Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 837 (ALL)

PREM VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-07-12

R.C.PANDEY, VISHNU SAHAI

body2002
VISHNU SAHAI, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenue Prem Verma has impugned the order dated 4. 11. 2001 passed by the 3rd respondent Mr. A. K. Tandon, District Magistrate, Kheri detaining him under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. The detention order along with the grounds or detention which are also dated 4. 11. 2001, was served on the petitioner-detenue on 4. 11. 2001 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition. 3. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenue impelling the third respondent to issue the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenue are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2 ). Since it is common ground between Counsel for the parties that the petitioner-detenue made a representation to the State Government on 20. 11. 2001 through Jail which was despatched therefrom the same day to the Detaining Authority who received it on the same day but since his office did not place it before him it was not disposed of and on this ground alone this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenue contained in the grounds of detention. 4. We feel distressed in observing that the Detaining Authority was callous and oblivious to his constitutional duty of disposing of dealing with the detenues representation at the earliest opportunity. It is implicit that in the fundamental right of the detenue, guaranteed by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India to prefer a representation at the earliest opportunity is implicit the obligation on the functionary who has to deal with it, to attend to it at the earliest opportunity. 5. In our view, it hardly lies in the mouth of the Detaining Authority to say, as he has said in paragraph 11 of his return, that since his office did not place petitioner-detenues representation before him, it was not disposed off. After all, he was the Detaining Authority; he had issued the Detention Order; and it was his duty to ensure that his office placed it before him at the earliest, opportunity. 6. After all, he was the Detaining Authority; he had issued the Detention Order; and it was his duty to ensure that his office placed it before him at the earliest, opportunity. 6. We expect that in future the Detaining Authorities would give top-most priority to the representations preferred by the detenue or those on their behalf, in preventive detention matters and would ensure that they are dealt with the utmost promptitude and till they are so dealt with keep an hawks eye on them. 7. In order to prevent such a recurrence, during the course of hearing of this petition before lunch, we directed learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 6 to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and in case he was not available any other officer who was looking after his work to remain present in the Court at 2. 00 P. M. In compliance of our orders at. 2 P. M. , Mr. Dipti Vilas, I. A. S. , Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh appeared before us. 8. We apprised him of the callousness shown by the Detaining Authority and his office in the instant case and emphasised to him that the mandate of law is that representations made by the detenue in a preventive detention matter have to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. He statad before us that he would convey to the Detaining Authorities the extreme promptitude with which they should deal with a representation in a preventive detention matter and would also bring the matter to the notice of the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for issuing suitable and appropriate directions. 9. Since the detenues representation dated 20. 11. 2001 addressed to the aisle Government has not been disposed of in the instant case, his continued detention cannot be sustained in law. 10. In the result, we cllow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner-detenue Prem Verma to be released forth with unless wanted in some other case. 11. We direct that a copy of this judgment be sent by 17. 7. 10. In the result, we cllow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner-detenue Prem Verma to be released forth with unless wanted in some other case. 11. We direct that a copy of this judgment be sent by 17. 7. 2002 to : (i) Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh; (ii) Principal Secretary (Home), Government, of Uttar Pradesh ; (iii) Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh ; (iv) District Magistrates of all the districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh; and (v) Principal Secretary Law and Judicialy and Legal Rememberancer Government of Uttar Pradesh. Petition Allowed. .