B.N. Mahapatra, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition, petitioner challenges the legality of the order of detention dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure -1) passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam -opposite party no. 2 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that the said order is illegal and contrary to law.
(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nutshell is that opposite party no. 2 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the Act has passed the order of detention on 09.01.2014 which was served on the petitioner -detenu on 12.01.2014 while he was in jail custody in connection with certain criminal cases. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the same day issued by opposite party no. 2. In the said grounds of detention, reliance has been placed on 6 (six) criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The State Government in exercise of power under Section 3(4) of the Act has approved the order of detention vide order dated 18.1.2014 under Annexure -3. On receipt of such grounds of detention, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 19.01.2014 to the jail authorities, separately to the Advisory Board of the State Government as well as the Central Government. Petitioner's representation was referred to the Advisory Board of the State Government and the date of hearing was fixed to 13.2.2014. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2014 by the Advisory Board and at that stage the petitioner prayed to opposite party No. 2 to permit him to appear before the Advisory Board on the date fixed, i.e., on 19.02.2014. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act, the State Government confirmed the detention order for twelve months from the date of the petitioner's detention vide order dated 11.03.2014. The representations of the petitioner were rejected on 18.03.2014. Hence, the present writ petition. Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner -detenu submitted that the documents supplied to the petitioner -detenu along with the grounds of detention are illegal and the same are violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. When the order of detention was approved by the State Government, it is incumbent upon the State Government as per Section 3(5) of the Act within seven days to report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been passed and such other particulars which in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the detention order. The State Government has not reported the order of detention and the approval thereof to the Central Government as per Section 3(5) of the Act for which the order of detention is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. There is no material on record to show that the State Government has conferred the power on the District Magistrate to issue the order of detention. Representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2014 was mechanically rejected by the State Government vide order dated 18.3.2014 without any proper application of mind. Thus, there was a delay of one month and 18 days. The said rejection order is cryptic and non -speaking one. There has been a delay in dealing with the representation of the petitioner by the State Government which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The representation dated 28.1.2014 of the petitioner to the Central Government was also rejected on 21.3.2014 after a delay of about two months which is also violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) MS . Mohapatra further submitted that the Advisory Board to which the case of the petitioner was referred under Section 10 of the Act was of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. In view of such opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government has mechanically confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) of the Act and under Section 13 of the Act directed detention of the petitioner for 12 months vide order dated 11.3.2014. The grounds of detention contained in Annexure -2 relate to ordinary law and order situation but not affecting the public order. The petitioner, who is a social worker and is espousing the cause of poor fishermen, has been arrested in connection with several criminal cases registered in one year, i.e., 2013. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Arjipalli Gama Panchayat from 2007 to 2012 and due to some political rivalry and in connivance with Gopalpur Port Authority, five cases have been registered against him along with other non -cognizable cases. In all the cases, the petitioner has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge as the cases against him are without any basis. The aforesaid order of detention is speculative in nature and does not have any foundation. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed against the petitioner have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the authority. In support of her contention, she relied on judgments of this Court in the case of Pradeep Sahu Vs. Union of India and others, : 2012 (II) OLR 1070; Bunty @ Ayushman Purohit Vs. State of Orissa and two others,, 2013 (I) OLR 416; and Kutuli @ Iswar Naik Vs. State of Odisha and others, : 2013 (II) OLR 473. All the criminal cases have been foisted by the police being influenced by the political persons. So far as non -F.I. Rs. are concerned, the petitioner has not received any notice and has no knowledge regarding station diary entry made against him. Since the criminal cases have been registered and are pending in the court of law, the criminal law is sufficient to punish the detenu and there is no necessity to resort to the National Security Act. The alleged act of the petitioner cannot be said to have disturbed the public order. Since the petitioner was in jail custody, he cannot disrupt the public order or even tempo of life and this aspect has not been appreciated. Thus, the order of detention is purely speculative, result of non -application of mind and the same has been passed without any basis or cogent materials. There is absolutely no complaint of any breach of public order and therefore, the order of detention is illegal. The representations of the petitioner having been rejected by the State Government as well as the Central Government after delay of 48 and 52 days respectively, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It is incumbent on the part of the State Government as well as the Central Government to dispose of the representation immediately.;