JUDGEMENT
Dua, J. -
(1.) The petitioner was arrested on November 8, 1971 pursuant to the order of detention of the same date passed under sub-section (1) (a) (iii) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The grounds of detention were also served on him and the matter reported to the State Government on that very day. On November 16, 1971 the State Government accorded its approval and made the necessary report to the Central Government. The case was placed before the Advisory Board on December 3, 1971. On December 6, 1971 the petitioner's representation was received by the State Government but it was considered on January 8, 1972 nearly 33 days after its receipt. The Advisory Board gave its decision on January 13, 1972 and the order of detention was affirmed by the State Government on January 22, 1972. The detenu was communicated of this order on January 25, 1972.
(2.) The only ground raised on behalf of the detenu before us is that the State Government considered his representation after undue delay and that his detention must be considered to have become illegal on this ground.
(3.) The explanation given by the State for this delay is contained in para 8 of the counter-affidavit and it reads:
".........the said representation of the detenu-petitioner could not be considered by the State earlier, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(a) that the go-slow movement launched by the State Government employees sometime back caused some dislocation in office work, consequential increase in the pending work and delay in disposal.
(b) that due to increase of the volume of work relating to detentions under the said Act there was considerable pressure of work and in consequence whereof disposal of urgent matters were also delayed.
(c) that due to aforesaid grounds, movement of files was delayed and the records were not readily available and in this case there was a delay of about 33 days in considering the representation of the petitioner.
I further state that the said delay was unintentional and was caused for such reasons beyond the control of the State Government. I submit that the said delay may be condoned.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.