S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition for a writ of habeas corpus tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitionees challeng his detention U/s. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of N. S. A.)
(2.) AS per averments disclosed in the petition, he is a resident of village Saledakala P. S. Chechat, District Kota. In pursuance to the order of the District Magistrate dated March 26, 1989 passed U/s. 3 (2) and (3) of the Act, he was arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Kota on the same day. The grounds of detention Annexure-1 dated March 23, 1989 were served on him on the same day. The order of his detention was approved by the State Government U/s. 3 (4) of the Act on 31. 3. 1989. The matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause of the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter passed order Annexure R/2 on 29-4-1989 and fixed the period of 12 months U/s. 13 of the Act. This order was also communicated to the petitioner on 4-5-1989. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Secretary, Home Ministry of the State on 30. 5. 1989 and submitted it to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota to transmit it to the authority addressed therein. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota by the letter Annexure-3 dated 30. 5 1989 sent the detenu's representation to the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the State Government. The petitioner also addressed another representation to the Central Government on the same day and submitted it to the Superintendent, Central Jail Kota who sent it to the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the State Government by his letter Annexure-4. The detention is challenged on the following two grounds amongst others:- (1) the grounds of detention have no rational or nexus with the maintenance of public! order and (2) the representations sent by the petitioner have not been considered and decided till the filing of the writ petition on 14. 6. 1989- In the return filed by the respondents, it was stated that the petitioner is a history-sheeter involved in many criminal cases of various offences including those of murder and dacoity. He had become a threat in the locality and his activities required that he should be detained under the Act to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As regards the representation, in paras 7 and 8 on page 3 of the return, it was admitted that he representation addressed to the Home Ministry of the State was received on 3-6-1989 from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota. The State Government dealt with this representation and called for the comments of the District Magistrate on 17. 6. 1989. The comments of the District Magistrate were received on 23-6-1989. The State Government considered the representation and rejected it on 8. 7. 198. The petitioner was accordingly informed on 9. 7. 1989. It was submitted that it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to allege that his representation was not considered and decided. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocatb General. Mr. Gupta - Learned counsel for the petitioner did not pressed ground number (1) Referred to above. He confined and concentrated his contention on ground number (2) viz. , the non consideration of the representation and the delay which occurred in its consideration after when this writ petition was failed. The facts involved about the detenu's making the representation and its rejection on 8. 7. 1989 are not in dispute.
(3.) IT was strenuously contended by Mr. Gupta that petitioner submitted his representation to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota on 30. 5. 1989 to be transmitted to the Secretary, Home Ministry of the State. The Superintendent, Central Jail in his turn sent it on the same day on 30 5. 1989 to the State Govt. where it was received either on 2. 6. 1989 or 3. 6. 1989. The State Govt. slept over the matter and passed an order only on 17. 6. 1989 directing the District Magistrate, Kota to send his comments. The comments of the District Magistrate were received on 23-6-89. The representation still then was not decided and it was finally rejected on 8. 7. 89. IT was argued that the first delay between 3. 6. 89 and 17. 6. 89 and the second delay between 23. 6. 89 and 8. 7. 89 have not been explained by the respondents. The State Government slept over the whole matter and decided the representation only after this writ petition was filed on 14-6-89. IT was argued that Article 22 (5) of the Constitution gives a right to the detenu to make a representation against his detention under the detention law. IT necessarily follows from article 22 (5) that the representation should be considered and disposed of expeditiously without delay. If the delay is there, it should be explained. IT was argued that the unexplained delay is fatal and makes the further detention to the detenu illegal. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1 ). It was on the other hand contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the delay if it is there, is not fatal and it is (sic-does) not make the detention illegal. The representation of the detenu was received in the Home Ministry on 3. 6. 89 and the comments of the District Magistrate were called by the order dated 17. 6. 89. The comments were received on 23. 6. 89 and after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner, his representation was rejected on 8-7-89. The delay is thus not there. We have taken the respective submission into consideration. We have pointed out here that the representation was submitted by the detenu on 30. 5. 89 and it was received in the Home-Ministry of the State Gove-detenu on 3. 6. 1989 as stated by the learned Additional Advocate General. It is again not in dispute that the State Government initiated the action for the first time on 17. 6. 89 and called for the comments of the detaining authority viz. the District Magistrate, Kota. The comments were received from the District Magistrate, Kota on 23. 6. 89. The representation was ultimately rejected on 8. 7. 89. The contention of Mr. Gupta is that the delay between 3. 6. 89 to 17. 6. 89 and 23. 6. 89 to 8. 7. 89 has not been explained and that is sufficient to vitiate the further detention of the detenu. The contention of Mr. Gupta is not ineffective. It has substantial force. ;