Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 795 (PAT)

Munna Tanti v. State Of Bihar

2003-08-01

BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, SACHCHIDANAND JHA

body2003
Judgment SACHCHIDANAND JHA and BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH JJ. 1. The petitioner has been detained by the District Magistrate, Begusarai under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 6.11.2002, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The detention was approved by the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Act and later confirmed on 17.12.2002, by it under Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said orders and his release from detention. 2. The chronological events germane to disposal of this case, briefly stated are as follows. After petitioner was detained and grounds of detention was served on him, on or about 28.2.2003, he submitted his representation which was forwarded by the Jail authorities to the Home Department on 28.2.2003. The representation was received in the department on 3.3.2003. On 6.3.2003, comments of the detaining authority, namely, District Magistrate, Gopalganj, was called for. On 7.3.2003, the same was received. The office dealt with the representation along with comments on 8.3.2003. On 10.3.2003, the Deputy Secretary put up his notes to the Special Secretary. On 11.3.2003, the Special Secretary forwarded his notes to the Secretary. The Secretary agreed with the notes and recommended rejection of the representation on , 15.3.2003. On 17.3.2003, the representation was rejected by the Minister Incharge. The rejection was communicated on 24.3.2003. 3. Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the petitioner was dealt with in a very casual manner which would be evident from the sequence of events. In particular, he pointed out that the period between 3.3.2003 and 7.3.2003 and, further 11.3.2003 and 15.3.2003 has not been explained. 4. We have looked into the Government file to have first hand account of the manner in which the petitioners representation was deait with. As regards period between 3.3.2003 and 7.3.2003, there is no apparent explanation for the period between 3.3.2003 and 6.3.2003 to which aspect we shall advert later in this judgment. As this stage it may be mentioned that the representation was forwarded by the Jail authorities by a special messenger but the same was received in the department only on 3.3.2003 for the reason that on 1.3.2003 the offices were closed on account of Maha Shivaratri and 2.3.2003 was Sunday. As this stage it may be mentioned that the representation was forwarded by the Jail authorities by a special messenger but the same was received in the department only on 3.3.2003 for the reason that on 1.3.2003 the offices were closed on account of Maha Shivaratri and 2.3.2003 was Sunday. From the fact that the representation had been sent by special messenger, it would appear that due awareness was shown by the Jail authorities in forwarding the representation. Further comment was asked for by FAX. The same was sent on the next day itself. As regards the period from 11.3.2003 and 15.3.2003, it appears that after the file was put up before the Secretary on 12.3.2003, he wanted a discussion with the Special Secretary. He made an endorsement to that effect on the same day. The discussion was held on 15.3.2003 and on the same day the Secretary forwarded his opinion to the Minister Incharge. Between 12.3.2003 and 15.3.2003, 14.3.2003 was closed on account of Muharrum. Thus, it was only on 13.3.2003 that no action was taken. 5. Point for consideration is whether omission to proceed with the representation for two days on 4.3.2003 and 5.3.2003 and for one day on 13.3.2003 would constitute inordinate delay. It is well settled that while considering question of delay in the matter of disposal of representation of a detenu, what is important is not the number of days of delay but the explanation. The substance of the matter in our opinion is awareness of the authorities to expeditiously decide the representation. From the narration of events mentioned above, it would appear that right since the day of receipt of representation, the authorities showed due awareness which is apparent from the fact that the file kept moving from one table/office to another throughout except on three days, as indicated above. 6. Though no explanation has been furnished by the department as to why no action was taken on these three days, we do not think that omission to take any action on these three days resulted in inordinate delay in disposal of the representation. It may be kept in mind that the Government took, in all, 24 days from the date of submission of the representation to decide the same. We thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel. 7. It may be kept in mind that the Government took, in all, 24 days from the date of submission of the representation to decide the same. We thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel. 7. Shri Thakur next submitted that the petitioner was denied assistance of a friend in course of hearing by the Advisory Board. In absence of the record or proceeding of the Advisory Board, it is not possible to ascertain whether the petitioner wanted the assistance of a friend in course of proceeding before the Advisory Board by filing any application or otherwise. It is relevant to mention that the Advisory Board consists of a Senior Judge of this Court and two retired Judges of the Court and, therefore, it is unlikely that any such objection/ request would have gone unheeded. Coungel for the State pointed out that the averments in this regard are vague and not adequate and, therefore, the court may not accept the petitioners case. We in the circumstances rejected the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner too. 8. No other contention was raised. 9. In the result, the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner having been rejected, this writ petition must fail which is accordingly dismissed.