S.R.Singh, Krishna Kumar - (1.) -Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri K. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India.
(2.) THE petitioner herein has sought for issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court and to set him at liberty. It appears that Case Crime No. 199 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner at police station Bithri Chainpur, district Bareilly. THE petitioner surrendered himself in the Court below and applied for bail. THE District Magistrate, Bareilly, however, passed an order under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 1980, for detention of the petitioner in order to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the basis, the report submitted by the sponsoring authority in the back-ground of Case Crime No. 199 of 1999, aforestated the detention order was served on the petitioner on 1.7.1999, while he was in jail. THE order of detention was approved by the State Government on 9.7.1999, and confirmed on 18.8.1999. THE petitioner made a representation on 14.7.1999 to the State Government and the Central Government through the Jail Superintendent, Bareilly. THE representations were handed over to the District Magistrate on 14.7.1999, itself, which was rejected by the State Government on 4.8.1999. THE continued detention of the petitioner is sought to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in disposal of the representation. The representation dated 14.7.1999, was received by the District Magistrate on that very date. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, S. R. Meena, it has been stated that on the same it was found necessary to obtain report before preparing para-wise comments. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, was asked to send report on the aforesaid representation. After collecting the information from the Circle Officer and Station Officer concerned, the Senior Superintendent of Police submitted his report on 30.7.1999. Thereafter, final parawise comment was prepared and the same was sent through special messenger to the State Government on the same day. In the counter-affidavit filed by R. A. Khan, Under Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U. P. Civil Secretariat, it has been stated as under : "That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 8, 10 and 11 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner's representation dated nil was forwarded by the District Magistrate. Bareilly, by his letter dated 14.7.1999 to the Central Government as well as to the State Government which was received by the State Government on 16.7.1999. The District Magistrate, Bareilly vide above referred letter has sent one copy of the representation and even that was not accompanied with para-wise comments of Detaining Authority. The State Government vide its letter dated 19.7.1999, asked the District Magistrate, Bareilly to send extra copies of the said representation as well as parawise comments. Thereafter, the petitioner's representation dated nil along with parawise comments thereon, forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bareilly vide his letter dated 30.7.1999, were received by the State Government on 31.7.1999. The State Government sent copies of the representation and parawise comments thereon to the U. P. Advisory Board vide its letter dated 2.8.1999. The concerned section of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 2.8.1999. The deponent examined it on 3.8.1999, and the Joint Secretary examined it on 3.8.1999 and thereafter, submitted it to the Special Secretary, Home and Confidential Department who examined it 3.8.1999 and submitted it to the higher authorities for final orders of the State Government. After due consideration, the said representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 4.8.1999. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the district authority by the State Government Radiogram dated 5.8.1999. Hence, the facts mentioned above show that the representation of the petitioner decided expeditiously by the State Government. Averments to the contrary are denied."
(3.) IT would thus appear that if the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate is to be believed then there is no explanation at all for the period between 14.7.1999 and 30.7.1999. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, the representation was sent to the State Government on 30.7.1999, whereas according to the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government the representation was received by the State Government on 16.7.1999 and it was thereafter, that the State Government wrote a letter on 19.7.1999 to the District Magistrate, Bareilly, asking the latter to send extra copies of the representation as well as parawise comments thereof. However, there is no explanation at all for the delay between 19.7.1999 and 30.7.1999. Legal position well settled is that unexplained delay in deciding the representation would vitiate the continued detention. See K. M. Abdullah Konhi v. Union of India, 1999 (1) SC 216, Venmathi Selvan (Mrs.) v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, JT 1998 SC 393. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.;