- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenue Prem Verma has impugned the order dated 4. 11. 2001 passed by the 3rd respondent Mr. A. K. Tandon, District Magistrate, Kheri detaining him under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.
(2.) THE detention order along with the grounds or detention which are also dated 4. 11. 2001, was served on the petitioner-detenue on 4. 11. 2001 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenue impelling the third respondent to issue the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenue are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2 ). Since it is common ground between Counsel for the parties that the petitioner-detenue made a representation to the State Government on 20. 11. 2001 through Jail which was despatched therefrom the same day to the Detaining Authority who received it on the same day but since his office did not place it before him it was not disposed of and on this ground alone this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenue contained in the grounds of detention. We feel distressed in observing that the Detaining Authority was callous and oblivious to his constitutional duty of disposing of dealing with the detenue's representation at the earliest opportunity. It is implicit that in the fundamental right of the detenue, guaranteed by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India to prefer a representation at the earliest opportunity is implicit the obligation on the functionary who has to deal with it, to attend to it at the earliest opportunity.
(3.) IN our view, it hardly lies in the mouth of the Detaining Authority to say, as he has said in paragraph 11 of his return, that since his office did not place petitioner-detenue's representation before him, it was not disposed off. After all, he was the Detaining Authority; he had issued the Detention Order; and it was his duty to ensure that his office placed it before him at the earliest, opportunity. We expect that in future the Detaining Authorities would give top-most priority to the representations preferred by the detenue or those on their behalf, in preventive detention matters and would ensure that they are dealt with the utmost promptitude and till they are so dealt with keep an hawk's eye on them.;