Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for setting-aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner Amit under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act dated 21-1-2009 by District Magistrate, Moradabad.
The detention order was passed on the grounds that on 1.11.2008, when one Smt. Neetu along with her mother Smt. Chandrawati reached Kapoor Company Bridge, Moradabad, the petitioner threatened Smt. Neetu with death and poured acid on her; Petitioner was apprehended on spot. As a result of such daring act, the feeling of fear was developed in the public mind and public order was disturbed. As the petitioner's bail had been rejected by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate, apprehended that the bail might be granted by the High Court and there was apprehension that the petitioner would again involve himself in the aforesaid criminal activities affecting public order, hence it was thought necessary to preventively detain the petitioner.
We have heard Sri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Union of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to one submission that the representation of the petitioner dated 21-1-2009 which was submitted to various authorities including the Central Government through jailor, was considered with inordinate delay by the Central Government.
It was pointed out that the District Magistrate forwarded the petitioner's representation with his comments on 11.2.2009, to the State Government after obtaining the comments from the S.S.P. Moradabad. It was submitted that the State Government received the representation on 13.2.2009 and even rejected the same on 18.2.2009. This shows that the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner with utter promptness. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of Union of India by the under Secretary, Ministry of Home and Affairs, Government of India, it was submitted that the representation of the petitioner was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 26.2.2009. The representation was put up for consideration on 23-3-2009 and the case of detenu was processed at the levels of under Secretary, Consultant and Joint Secretary who placed the same before the Union Home Secretary on 24-3-2009. The Home Secretary considered the case of the detenue on 27.3.2009 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The decision of the Central Government was sent by a wireless message dated 31.3.2009 to Government of U.P and Superintendent District Jail, Moradabad, U.P informing that the representation of the detenue Amit was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 27-3-2009.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that there was delay in processing the representation of the petitioner but there was no deliberate casualness in the matter. During the relevant period, a large number of representation were received, especially from the State Government of U.P and this caused some delay in processing and deciding the representation. The representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 26.2.2009 but nothing was done till 23-3-2009. No explanation for this delay of 25 days has been furnished by the respondent no.1. The grounds that during the relevant period, a large number of representation were received from the State of U.P cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for not taking action for a period of 25 days.
Thus it took 29 days for the Central Government to reject the representation of the petitioner.
In Rajammal V. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 684 where consideration of the representation had been delayed merely because the Minister was on tour, it was held to be an unjustified ground for permitting violation of the fundamental rights of liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the said file could easily have been forwarded to the Minister. The said decision mentions that "absence of Minister at the Headquarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached to the Minister with utmost promptitude in a case involving the vital fundamental right of the citizen." The absence of dealing clerk of NSA Desk in February, 2009 due to long leave and delay in consideration of NSA matters was very seriously viewed by another Bench of this Court in Pranshu Dutt Dwivedi Vs. Superintendent District Jail, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad and others, 2009 (67) ACC 83.
We find that this inordinate delay of 29 days in disposal of the representation by the Central Government has not been adequately and reasonably explained by the Central Government. The manner in which the representation of the petitioner remained pending before the Central Government is shocking to the conscience of the Court. In these circumstances, we have no option but to quash the continued detention of the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010 skv