Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 927 (ALL)

RAJESH SINGH @ BABLU SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-19

POONAM SRIVASTAVA, S.C.AGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for setting-aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner Rajesh Singh alias Bablu Singh under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act dated 11.11.2009 by District Magistrate, Deoria. 2. The detention order was passed on the grounds that in pursuance of a secret information, the police, on 3.9.2009 at 12:25 p.m. arrested Vijay Kumar Singh alias Ramesh Singh and Haiku Yadav and recovered fake currency notes from their possession. On interrogation, the involvement of the petitioner also came to light. On the same day at 12:55 p.m., Police arrested the petitioner and recovered two fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination and one fake currency note of Rs. 500/- denomination from his possession. Fake currency notes were also recovered from other accused persons. On interrogation, it was revealed that petitioner and his companions managed to circulate large number of fake currency notes in Districts Deoria, Kushi Nagar, Ballia, Gorakhpur and neighbouring districts of State of Bihar. The act of the petitioner and his companions was affecting the economy of the Nation and services essential to the community. The District Magistrate apprehended that bail might be granted to the petitioner by the Court, but there was apprehension that the petitioner would again involve himself in the aforesaid criminal activities affecting the economy of the Nation and services essential to the community, hence it was thought necessary to preventively retain the petitioner. 3. We have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri N.P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Union of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to one submission that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2009 which was submitted to various authorities including the Central Government through jailor, was considered with inordinate delay by the Central Government. 5. It was pointed out that the District Magistrate forwarded the petitioner’s representation with his comments on 23.11.2009, to the State Government after obtaining the comments from the Sponsoring Authority. It was submitted that the State Government received the representation on 24.11.2009 and even rejected the same on 1.12.2009. There were public holidays from 28.11.2009 to 29.11.2009. This shows that the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner with utter promptness. 6. It was submitted that the State Government received the representation on 24.11.2009 and even rejected the same on 1.12.2009. There were public holidays from 28.11.2009 to 29.11.2009. This shows that the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner with utter promptness. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home and Affairs, Government of India, it was submitted that the representation of the petitioner was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2.12.2009. The representation of detenue was processed on 11.12.2009 at the levels of Under Secretary, Consultant and Joint Secretary and was placed before the Union Home Secretary who considered the case of the detenue on 15.12.2009 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The decision of the Central Government was sent by a wireless message dated 16.12.2009 to Government of U.P and Superintendent District Jail, Deoria, U.P informing that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 15.12.2009. 7. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 that although there was delay in processing the representation of the petitioner but there was no deliberate casualness in the matter. During the relevant period, a large number of representations were received, especially from the State of U.P resulting in accumulation of backlog of representations and this caused some delay in processing and deciding the representation of the petitioner. 8. The representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 2.12.2009, but nothing was done till 10.12.2009 and the representation was processed for consideration on 11.12.2009. On 15.12.2009 the representation was rejected by the Union Home Secretary. No satisfactory explanation for delay from 2.12.2009 to 10.12.2009 has been furnished by respondent No. 5. The ground that during the relevant period, a large number of representations were received from the State of U.P., can not be said to be a sufficient ground for not taking action for a long period. 9. No satisfactory explanation for delay from 2.12.2009 to 10.12.2009 has been furnished by respondent No. 5. The ground that during the relevant period, a large number of representations were received from the State of U.P., can not be said to be a sufficient ground for not taking action for a long period. 9. In Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 684 where consideration of the representation had been delayed merely because the Minister was on tour, it was held to be an unjustified ground for permitting violation of the fundamental rights of liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the said file could easily have been forwarded to the Minister. The said decision mentions that “absence of Minister at the Headquarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached to the Minister with utmost promptitude in a case involving the vital fundamental right of the citizen.” 10. The absence of dealing clerk of NSA Desk in February, 2009 due to long leave and delay in consideration of NSA matters was very seriously viewed by another Bench of this Court in Pranshu Dutt Dwivedi v. Superintendent District Jail, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad and others, 2009(7) ADJ 437 (DB). 11. We find that this inordinate delay of 13 days in disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government has not been adequately and reasonably explained by the Central Government. We are conscious of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are of a very serious nature but when it is decided to preventively detain a person by depriving him of his right of personal freedom, the due process of law has to be observed. The manner in which the representation of the petitioner remained pending before the Central Government for a long period, is shocking to the conscience of the Court. In these circumstances, we have no option but to quash the continued detention of the petitioner. 12. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. ————