Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 93 (GAU)

Md. Hamid Ali v. State of Manipur

2009-02-10

A.C.UPADHYAY, KETULHOU MERUNO

body2009
JUDGMENT K. Meruno, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned GA for the State respondents and Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the detention order dated 7.6.2008 with regard to the detention of the detenue, Md. Anwar Shah who has been detained under the National Security Act, (NSA). It is also stated that representations have been submitted to both the State respondents and the Central Government. The only ground for challenging the detention order is the delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue. Upon calculating the delay from the date of submission of representation, a total period of 108 days has arisen in disposal of the representation of the detenue. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 6.2.2009 in WP(Crl.) No. 71 of 2008. The said judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 has set aside the detention order on the failure of the State Government and allegation about inordinate and unexplained delay in transmitting the parawise comment as regards the said representation. 3. Counter on behalf of all the respondents have also been filed. We have perused the pleadings and the documents filed. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned GA fairly submits and concedes that the respondents have not properly explained the inordinate delay and, therefore, this Court may pass any order which it may deem fit and proper. Since there were lapses on the part of the State respondents in not explaining the inordinate delay, we are of the considered opinion that without going into the other merits of the case, this writ petitioner can be disposed of in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court pertaining to inordinate and unexplained delay. Keeping in view of the judgment of this Court dated 6.2.2009 referred to above and also in view of the case of Yumnam Anand Meitei @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2006 (4) GLT 202 wherein this Court held that unexplained delay in disposal of the representation vitiates the order of detention and order of detention was set aside. 2006 (4) GLT 202 wherein this Court held that unexplained delay in disposal of the representation vitiates the order of detention and order of detention was set aside. In another reported case of this Court as reported in the case of Laireniakpam Somorendro Singh @ Somorendra Singh @ Kenedy v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2006 (4) GLT 106 it has been held that the need for expeditious disposal of the representation has been emphasized and the order of detention was set aside. 5. Since the law with regards to the inordinate and unexplained delay is now well settled, we need not burden this judgment by repeating all the various decisions of this Court or of the Apex Court. Since the State respondents have fairly conceded that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay we are of the considered view that in the instant case also there has arisen inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the State respondents. In the absence of any explanation the failure on the part of the State Government has caused infringement of the right of the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter keeping in view of the settled law in this regard, we have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the impugned detention order dated 7.6.2008, the approval order dated 19.6.2009 and the confirmation order dated 25.7.2008 which we do. The detenue shall be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 6. With the above observation this writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.