Back
2006 Supreme(Ori) 568
2006 (II) OLR — 591
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND M. M. DAS, J.
Bijaya Parida...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others...Opp. Parties
W. P. (Crl.) No. 83 of 2006
Decided on 9th August, 2006.
For Petitioner:M/s. D. K. Mishra, B. Behera and S. Vikram
For Opp. Parties:Addl. Government Advocate (for O.Ps. 1 to 3)
Mr. Sangram Ku. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel (C.G.), (for O.P.No. 4)
Headnote:1. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - Sec. 3 (2) - Order of detention - Petitioner-detenu in custody - Order challenged in writ - Held, even though the State Government was required to consider the representation of the petitioner-detenu at the earliest possible time as envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitu¬tion read with Sec. 8 of the Act, it was done after fifteen days of filing of the representation - Delay of fifteen days having not been specifically explained by the State, the order of deten¬tion quashed. (Para - 8)
2. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - Secs. 3(2), 8 - Constitution of India - Art. 22 (5) - Order of detention - Representation before State Government, Central Government and Advisory Board - Consideration of the same.
State Government cannot wait for the opinion of the Advisory Board for considering the representation of the petitioner-detenu only after receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board. This is because the petitioner-detenu’s right to have the representation considered by the Government under Article 22(5) of the Constitu¬tion read with Section 8 of the Act is independent of considera¬tion of the petitioner-detenu’s case and his representation by the Advisory Board and the Government is under an obligation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Act to consider the representation of the petitioner-detenu as soon as may be and at the earliest opportunity against the order of detention and passed orders thereon.
(Para - 6)
JUDGMENT
M. M. DAS, J. — In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu challenges the order of detention dated 25.10.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Puri under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the Act’) on various grounds.
2. The petitioner-detenu’s case, in brief, is that he is the brother of one Ananta Parida who was the President of the Delanga Hat on being elected by the majority of the shop owners till the year 2005 when the order of detention was passed. The petitioner-detenu’s younger brother was murdered by some anti-socials on 29.8.2005 for which he lodged an information in the Delanga Police Station and a case was registered thereon being Delanga P.S.Case No. 95 (10)/2005 under Sections 302/294/34 IPC. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to political rivalry he was implicated in various criminal cases and in fur¬therance of such political vendetta against him the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Puri without due application of mind.
3. The English translation of the order of detention which was passed in Oriya is as follows :
COURT OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE : PURI
Order No. 1255/C, Dated Puri the 25th October, 2006.
WHEREAS, I Shri Aswini Kumar Das, District Magistrate, Puri has been directed in Government of Orissa Home (Special Section) Department Order No. 3770/C dated 14.9.2005 to exercise the powers by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Secu¬rity Act, 1980.
WHEREAS, I am satisfied that Sri Bijaya Parida, aged about 35 years, son of Sagar Parida of village Gunduchipatna, P.S. Delanga, District - Puri who is in jail custody in Puri District Jail, has a long criminal record and he has been doing crimes alongwith his associates in Delang P.S.area and other areas of the district disturbing public life, order and tranquillity. The cases may be isolated. But on the whole the degree and intensity of the crimes committed by him is such that he holds the society to ransom. His activities are menace to the society. Therefore quite a lot of people do not register cases against him fearing reprisal against them. He has built up a group and he along with them has ruptured the peaceful social life of the people. Hence extraordinary measures are required against him. It is apprehended if he is released on bail he will again resort to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order.
IN VIEW OF ABOVE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, I do hereby direct that the said Bijaya Parida be detained in the District Jail, Puri until further orders.
Sd/- A. K. Das
25.10.2005
District Magistrate, Puri”
4. From the above order, it is clear that the order of detention was passed when the petitioner-detenu was in custody in connection with some other criminal cases and apprehending that if he is released on bail he will again resort to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority passed the above order of detention. The grounds of detention dated 29.10.2005 which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition was served on the petitioner-detenu on 29.10.2005. The petitioner-detenu was given option to file his representation against the said order of detention before the State Government as well as the Central Government and before the Advisory Board. The petitioner-detenu has alleged that he was not supplied with the copies of other documents on which the grounds of detention were based. He has further alleged that against the order of detention, the petitioner-detenu sent the representations on 2.12.2005 through the Superintendent of District Jail, Puri to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. The Advisory Board constituted under the Act came to a finding that there were sufficient grounds for deten¬tion and, therefore, upheld the orde
