IMPORTANT POINT
In preventive detention cases when the representation made does not disclose the identity of the applicant or that he was duly instructed and authorised by the detenu to make it, non-consideration or delayed consideration of such a representation does not ipso facto vitiate the order of detention.

JUDGMENT

V.A. Mohta, J. - This is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the detenu Anil Pasarkar challenging the order of his detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (the NS Act), dated 30th May 1989.

2. According to Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order and the continued detention is vitiated because of:

1) Non-explaining the grounds of detention if Marathi.

2) Non-submission of the report of the State Government to the Central Government within 7 days as required under section 3(5) of the NS Act

3) Non-mentioning of the period of detention in the original order.

4) Non-consideration of the representation alleged to have been made by one Jiwan Baghel.

3. Basic acts rust. The detenu was externed from Nagpur District for a period of two years vide order dated 1st March 1983 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, since he was found tQ engage himself in the,commission of violent and desperate acts, armed with deadly weapons since 1980. He violated the extemment orders, entered the city of Nagpur committed grave offences and created terror in the minds of the general public. He was detained under the NS Act vide order dated 19th December 1983 on the ground that he had disturbed even tempo of public which was prejudicial to the. maintenance of public order. On completion of period of one year of detention, he was released. He repeated his activities and was therefore, detained second time on 11 th April, 1987, from which detention he, was released on 10th April 1988. The detenu even thereafter did not give, up his activities and indulged in fresh incidents of disturbing the even tempo of public. Provisions of ordinary criminal laws were falling short to curb his activities and hence, the impugned order of detention dated 30th May 1989 was passed third time. Those prejudicial activities relate to the period between 6th July 1986and2ndM~y, 1989 due to which as many as seven criminal cases were filed in several Courts from different police stations. The charges pertain to the commission of violent and desperates acts, such as rioting, abusing people in filthy language, threatening to kill them carrying deadly weapons in contravention of the prohibitory orders in force and creating terror in the minds of the general public.

4. The order of detention initially passed by the Commissioner of Police was approved by the State Government on 7th June 1989 and was confirmed by the Advisory Board on 13m July 1989 for a period of one year from the date of detention. The State Government sent the report to the Central Government on 7th June 1989, which reached the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12th June 1989. The examination of the report by the Central Government was completed on 16th June 1989 and no reason for revocation of the order was found.

5. On 22nd September 1989, the State Government received one representation. It was addressed to no body. It did not hear either any date or any signature/thumb mark. The photostat copy of the said representation is placed on record as Annexure 2 Against the column applicant is written only the same “Jiwan Baghele”. It does not disclose the address of the applicant or his relationship with the detenu. It does not even state that it was sent under instructions and authority from the detenu.

6. The first three grievances appear to be exfacie altrustic and hollow. There is an endorsement by the Jailor that the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu in Hindi. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that endorsement. It is not the case of the detenu that he does not follow Hindi language. The State Government as well as the Central Government have filed affidavits to the effect that the report was despatched on 7th June 1989 by the State Government and received on 12th June 1989 by the Central Government. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of those statement either. There is thus no violation of section 3(5) of the NS Act. It is