SIROMAN SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . This matter came before us a number of times and the fact which is also not disputed is that pursuant to an order passed on 3 -11 -1987 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner is continuing in detention under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 for short, the 'Act'. From time to time bearing was adjourned because State defaulted in producing the relevant records on dates fixed for that purpose. On the last date, we had to warn the State that adverse inference shall be drawn if the default continued, because of alleged non -consideration of petitioner's "representation" which has become the pivotal issue for decision in this case.

(2.) IN the petition, challenging the detention order and continued detention pursuant to the order being confirmed, at para 3 itself, it was stated on oath on 25 -1 -1988 that the petitioner had submitted a "representation" [contemplated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution] of which a copy was furnished with the petition and marked as Annexure P/2. True, in the Return, at para 3, respondents have taken the plea that no representation was received till 23 -11 -1987 or even till 14 -12 -87. The fact which is also stated in the Return is that the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 14 -12 -1987 and that he was heard without any representation. Because the fact of submission of representation was contested in the Return, petitioner's mother, who had sworn to the petition, filed subsequently another affidavit buttressing the position that she had submitted representation to the Jailor and that the Jailor assured her that he would do the needful as signature on the representation had to be obtained of the petitioner who was incarcerated in Jail. However, we are not basing our decision on that affidavit.

(3.) SHRI Dudawat, appearing for the respondents has endeavoured seriously to persuade us to take a different view of law in this matter, but we do not see any reason why we should oblige him. A considered decision rendered by another co -ordinate Bench of this Court is binding on us till the decision is set aside or reviewed by Larger Bench. If we have to say anything more, suffice it to say that on of us (Dr. T. N. Singh, J.) was a party to that decision and importantly rather, facts of the instant case exemplify the soundness of the view taken therein inasmuch as had the Board inquired of the detenue in the instant case of submission of "representation" by him, the factual controversy relating thereto would not have survived today. The Constitution -makers in their vast wisdom and sound judgment, conceived of interposition of an independent body like the Advisory Board as the surest possible guarantee of the "modicum of safeguard" against infraction of personal liberty of citizens to ensure that the prized possession of the same by the citizens of the free country was duly protected with proper care and caution.