- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. An order of preventive detention has been clamped upon petitioner by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 21-4-2006 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while he was in jail in connection with other crimes.
(2.) THE said detention order has been impugned in the writ petition and a prayer has been made to set him at liberty as his continued detention is bad in law. The District Magistrate while passing the detention order on the basis of the police reports dated 7-4- 2006 and 11-4-2006 was fully satisfied that the petitioner is involved in not less than six heinous crimes of murder, attempt to murder and of extortion of money and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, therefore, it is necessary to put him in preventive detention. The petitioner is said to be earning his livelihood by his aforesaid illegal activities. The detention order was served upon the petitioner on the same date alongwith grounds of the detention and other relevant documents. The petitioner submitted his representation on 1-5- 2006 with several copies to the jail authorities with the prayer to forward the same to the detaining authority, advisory board, State Government and Central Government for setting aside the detention order.
(3.) THE representation of the petitioner was rejected by the detaining authority i. e. the District Magistrate as well as by the State Government. THE representation of the petitioner was simultaneously forwarded to the Central Government alongwith the necessary documents directly by the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 3-5-2006 and by the State Government by speed post vide letter dated 4-5-2006. THE representation of the petitioner, both ways as aforesaid, was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 15-5-2006. THE representation was finally rejected on 13-7-2006 and its rejection was duly communicated to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences or the incidents which forms the basis of detention are old incidents and the preventive detention on such stale matters is not justified. In a series of decisions the Supreme Court has provided that even if there is some delay in passing the order of detention the same would not be fatal so as to enable the Court to struck down the order of detention. The time of passing the detention order in relation to the incident or incidents is not very material while ordering preventive detention and what is more relevant and important is the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating the passing of the order of preventive detention. In Yogendra Murari v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1988 JIC 884 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 1835, it has been held that an order of detention cannot be mechanically struck down if it has been passed after some delay. In such a case it is necessary to consider the circumstances in each case and find out whether the delay had been satisfactorily explained or not. In the said case the detention order was passed four months after the incident and it was held that the order is not bad on account of the delay in passing the same. In another case of Abdul Salim v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1990 SC 1446, it was observed by the Supreme Court that mere delay in passing the detention order cannot be a ground for quashing it. The activities of the detenu and likelihood of the repetition of the said activities by him and the nature of the activities are relevant and should also be taken into consideration. The mere fact that the incident or incidents have taken place some time back does not necessarily mean that the nexus gets severed and that the grounds of detention have become stale and illusory.;