- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Satish Singh has impugned the order dated 4-1-2003 passed by the third respondent. Mr. Ram Kumar, District Magistrate, Sultanpur, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The detention order, alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 4-1-2003, was several on the petitioner-detenu on 4-1-2003 itself, and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 (B) and respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the third respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention, but since, in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication of the pleadings contained in paragraph 10 of the petition and those contained in ground 15 (b) thereof, on which alone this writ petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them. THE substance of the pleadings contained therein is that on 13- 1-2003 the petitioner-detenu made a representation to the State Government/the Union of India/the Advisory Board, but the said authorities have not taken any decision on it. Mr. R. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu however only restricted his challenge so far as the representation made by the petitioner-detenu to the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) is concerned. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of the petition and ground 15 (b) thereof have been replied to in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the return of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Union of India, New Delhi. A perusal of the said paragraphs would show as under: The representation of the detenu dated 14-1-2003, alongwith para-wise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 20-1-2003 and in the concerned desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 21-2-2003 through Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Letter No. 111/2/01/2003-CX-6 dated 18-1-2003. On 22-1-2003, it was put up before the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, who considered the same and alongwith his comments forwarded it to the Joint Secretary on 23-1-2003, who in turn on the said date itself forwarded it to the Union Home Secretary (who has been delegated powers by the Union Home Minister to decide such cases ). On 24-1- 2003 the Union Home Secretary rejected the representation. On 29-1-2003 the detenu was informed of the decision of the Central Government through a wireless message bearing the said date by the Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Superintendent, District Jail, Faizabad. We have considered the averments contained in paragraphs 10 of the petition and ground 15 (b) thereof and those contained in paragraph 6 to 9 of the return of Mr. Ramesh Kumar. It would be manifest from the above that although the Union Home Secretary rejected the representation of the petitioner-detenu on 24-1-2003 but the detenu was only communicated the rejection after five days (i. e. on 29-1-2003 ). It is significant to mention that no explanation has been furnished in the said return for communicating the result of the representation after five days. The Supreme Court in the oft-quoted case of Harish Pahwa (Appellant) v. State of U. P. and others, (Respondents), reported in AIR 1981 SC 1126, in paragraph 3 has observed thus: ". . . . . . We should emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. . . . " A perusal of the aforesaid passage would make it manifest that the representation in a preventive detention matter has to be dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. In other words, the exercise in dealing with detenu's representation has to be continuous till the result thereof is communicated tot he detenu.
(3.) IN the instant case, the ratio laid-down in Harish Pahwa's case (supra) has been given a go-bye because as mentioned earlier although the Union Home Secretary rejected the detenu's representation on 24-1-2003 but the rejection was only communicated to him on him 29-1-2003. Since there has been an unexplained delay of five days in communicating to the detenu the result of rejection of his representation by the. Union Home Secretary, the continued detention of the petitioner- detenu would stand vitiated in law.;