V. Dutta Gyani, J. —

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the detenu-petitioner prays for quashing the detention order dated 12.4.97 passed by the District Magistrate, Nagaon in exercise of his powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and prays for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. Since the order as passed has a decisive impact on the fate of this petition, it is produced hereunder for ready reference :

“Govt of Assam:: Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon

ORDER

Perused the dossier and the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam and whereas the undersigned is satisfied with respect of the person known as Sri Purna Bora @ Dilip Bora @ Baba @ Lara @ Kamandu S/o late Gujar Bora of village Nasatra Kalmateli, Aibheti, PS Nagaon, Assam that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security to the State and maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980 and to make the following order.

Now, I, Sri S. Abbasi, IAS, District Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 direct that the said Sri Puma Bora @ Dilip Bora @ Baba @ Lara @ Kamandu S/o late Gujar Bora of village Nasatra Kalmateli, Aibheti, PS Nagaon, Dist Nagaon Assam be detained in the Special Jail, Nagaon, Assam. The Detention Order will be served on him within 5 (five) days.

District Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam”

3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on grounds of non-application of mind, vitiating subjective satisfaction, non-furnishing of grounds of detention along with the basic facts and materials including the documents that has been relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, thereby depriving the detenu of the opportunity of making an effective representation; the inordinate undue unexplained delay in disposing of the representation as submitted by the detenu.

4. Mr. Bora, learned Addl Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State argued that all the procedural safeguards as provided under the Act have been strictly complied with, and the grounds of detention are relevant, proximate and germane to the object sought to be achieved by passing the impugned order of detention, Annexure A. According to him, there was no delay on the part of the State in disposing of the representation submitted by the detenu.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India also maintained that the representation as submitted by the, detenu was disposed of without any delay on the part of the Central Govt.

6. Before dealing with the rival contentions as advanced at the Bar, it would be pertinent to note that the grounds of detention as contained in Annexure B as furnished to the detenu, if were really the grounds relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order, we do not have the slightest hesitation in holding that they are not only relevant and germane but also proximate in point of time and do have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by passing the detention order. We do hold so, but unfortunately the detention order does not refer to these grounds at all. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on perusal of Dossier and report from Police Superintendent of the District. Annexure B contains reference to detenu's activities commencing from 1993 which was seemingly used and relied upon for passing the order of detention. Annexure B also contains reference to incidents and activities of December, 1993, December, 1995, February, 1996, November, 1996, they are quite proximate in point of time. These activities are extortion, murder, kidnapping and highly prejudicial to the safety and security of the State and maintenance of public order and offences under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document