Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned J.C. to AAG, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur) by virtue of which an order of preventive detention against the petitioner for a period of three months had been passed. A further prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 8.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 (Under Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management), whereby and where under the detention order passed by the respondent No. 3 has been confirmed and a further confirmation was made by the respondent No. 2 after the order was passed by the Advisory Board.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately after the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner, he had made his representation u/s 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act before the competent authority, but even after expiry of more that five months the said representation was never considered nor any explanation was given with respect to the delay in considering such representation. It has further been submitted that the respondents have acted against the constitutional mandate of considering and disposing of the representation at the earliest since the same involves the liberty of an individual. It has further been submitted that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 specifically states about non-consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and such being the admitted position the order of preventive detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred the judgment passed in the case of Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 435.;