- (1.) - Special Leave granted. The appellant was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The detaining authority found on subjective satisfaction, on the material placed before it, that the appellant is a desperate Goonda indulging in violent and terrorising activities at village Pisarve and its surrounding areas and that the appellant has created a reign of terror among the people in the village and the residents in the neighbourhood are apprehending danger to their lives and that they were constantly living under a shadow of fear. Thereby the public order has been affected. Instances in that regard were enumerated. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed and served it on the appellant. The grounds on which the subjective satisfaction was reached was communicated within the statutory period.
(2.) After the representation was rejected by the Board the appellant made a representation to the Central Government on July 6, 1991. It was received by the Central Government on July 15, 1991. The Central Government sought information from the State Government through their wireless message dated July 16, 1991. The State Government in turn sought the information from the detaining authority on July 24, 1991; and the comments and the material was forwarded by the detaining authority to the State Government on receipt whereof the State Government submitted the para wise comments to the Central Government on July 13, 1991. The Central Government received the information on August 6, 1991. The order was passed by the Central Government rejecting the appellant's representation on August 24, 1991 and was duly communicated on August 27, 1991.
(3.) Calling in question the order the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. Apart from other grounds, one of the contentions raised in the High Court was that the delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government offend his rights under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment dated September 18, 1991 rejected the contention. Thus, this appeal.;