Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1574 (PAT)

Sujay Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-26

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against his preventive detention in jail custody pursuant to order no. 712 dated 3.5.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Motihari under Sec. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short "the Act"). 3. There is no dispute that the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner and he submitted a representation against his detention. According to the petitioner, the representation was filed on 4.5.2007 whereas according to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1, State of Bihar, the representation was filed on 11.5.2007 which was forwarded vide letter no. 1025 dated 11.5.2007 of the District Jail, Motihari and the same was received in the Department on 4.6.2007. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 1 explains as to on what date representation was dealt with at different levels. According to the said counter affidavit, after thorough examination at different levels the representation was finally considered by the -Home Secretary on 22.5.2007 and thereafter for approval of the decision, the file was submitted to the Hon ble Chief Minister on 22.5.2007. The approval of the Chief Minister was recorded on 30.5.2007 and thereafter the fact of rejection of representation was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit dated 1,6.2007. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the representation particularly at the level of the Chief Minister and for that there is no explanation in the counter affidavit of any of the respondents. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajammal Vs. State of T.N. and another (AIR 1999 Supreme Court 685) to submit that in the said case a delay of 5 days in disposal of the representation at the level of the Minister was found to be totally unexplained and the mere absence of the Minister at the Headquarter was not accepted to be sufficient explanation. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions we granted time to the State Counsel to seek further instruction and pursuant to the said adjournment, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions we granted time to the State Counsel to seek further instruction and pursuant to the said adjournment, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today. A perusal of the supplementary counter affidavit shows that virtually no explanation has been offered for the delay in disposal of the representation at the level of the Chief Minister. Verbally, it has been submitted that the Chief Minister is burdened with the works of several departments and, therefore, some delay is natural. Thus, it has been said that the delay is on account of the administrative exigencies. We have considered the submissions and found unacceptable. The constitutional safeguards to a detenu against the preventive detention as per interpretation of constitutional provisions include right of expeditious disposal of the representation. Such constitutional safeguard cannot be diluted on the spacious plea of administrative exigency. The work of the Home Department dealing with the preventive detention must be organised in a manner so that it is in consonance with the constitutional requirements. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no option but to hold that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner at the level of the Chief Minister. The delay stands unexplained. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the detention and all other consequential orders confirming the same are quashed. The petitioner must be released from the preventive detention in custody at Motihari District Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.