Back
1987 Supreme(All) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P. S. Gupta, M. M. Lal
HIMANSHUDHAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition 17890 Of 1987
Decided On : 12/15/1987
Unexplained delay on the part of the State Government to consider the representation made by the detenu vitiates the order of detention and renders the continued detention of the detenu illegal.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3(2) - DETENTION - UNDUE DELAY IN DEALING WITH REPRESENTATION - DETENTION BECOMES BAD IN LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. He challenged his detention on the ground of undue delay in dealing with his representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and accordingly his detention became bad in law.
Issues: Whether the delay in dealing with the representation of the detenu vitiated the order of detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is the duty of the State to determine the representation of a detenu with the utmost expedition and deal with it continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenue. In this case, there was no explanation given by the Government as to why no action was taken on the representation of the detenu for several days. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner became bad in law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and quashed the impugned order of detention.
( 1 ) THIS is a Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of detention dated 26/5/1987 passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad under section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980.
( 2 ) IN a case under section 60 of the Excise Act the petitioner was arrested on 13/5/1987 by C. R. P. Police, Mirzapur. He was sent to District Jail, Mirzapur on 14/5/1987. The District Magistrate, Allahabad passed the detention order against the petitioner on 26/5/1987. The same was served on the petitioner on 27/5/1987. The said order was approved by the State Government on 1/6/1987. The case of the petitioner was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board on 6-6-87. The petitioner made a representation against his detention order on 11-6-87. The said representation was sent by Superintendent, District Jail, Mirzapur to the District Magistrate, Allahabad by post on 11/6/1987. The said representation was received by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 17/6/1987. On 18/6/1987 the District Magistrate, Allahabad caned for the comments of the police which were furnished on 27-6-87. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Allahabad forwarded his comments and the representations to the State Government on 27-6-87. The said documents were received by confidential Section in the State Government on 29-6-87. The representation of the petitioner was placed before Advisory Board on 30-6-87. The hearing before the Advisory Board took place on 2/7/1987. In the mean while the concerned Section in the Secretariat examined the representation of the petitioner and prepared a detailed note on 1-7-1987. The representation of the petitioner was examined by the Joint Secretary (Home), Special Secretary (Home) and Home Secretary on 2/3/7/1987. There representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 5/7/1989. The petitioner had made a second representation as well which was received by the State Government on 1/7/1987. The said representation was rejected by the State Government on 24-7-87.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged his detention order on a number of grounds but the main ground which the learned counsellor the petitioner has urged before us is that there was undue delay in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. It may again be noted that the petitioner bad handed over his first representation to the jail authorities as early as on 11/6/1987 and the same was rejected by the State Government as late as on 5/7/1987. There was thus, delay in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. It has been held in Hem Lal Bhandari v. State of Sikkim and others, that it is not permissible in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers and that in matters where the liberty of the citizens is involved it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. Expeditious action is insisted upon as a safe-guard against the manipulation. Similarly, in Saleh Mohd. v. Union of India and Shri Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: Times out of number, this court bas emphasised that where the liberty of an individual is curtailed under a law of preventive detention the representation, if any, made by him must be attended to, dealt with and considered with watchful care and reasonable promitude lest the safeguards provided in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and the statute concerned should be stultified and rendered meaningless.
( 4 ) LEARNED Deputy Government Counsel, on the other hand, has urged before us that the delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner is explained in this case. In this context he has referred to us the affidavit sworn by the District Magistrate, Allahabad wherein it has been stated that the representation dated
