Hon. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for setting-aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner Sonu under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act dated 21.2.2009 by District Magistrate, Bareilly.
The detention order was passed on the grounds that on 8.1.2009 at 8 a.m., in pursuance of a secret information, the Police of P.S. Prem Nagar, district Bareilly, arrested six persons including the writ petitioner standing in-front of Kudeshiya Phatak, Nainital Road, Bareilly. 44 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Similarly, fake currency notes were also recovered from other 5 persons arrested on the spot. On interrogation, it was revealed that fake currency notes were being printed at the house of Mahendra Pal Gangwar in village Simra Keshavpur, Police Station Faridpur, district Bareilly with the help of computer, scanner etc. Police raided the house of Mahendra Pal Gangwar, arrested him and on search, computer monitor and other articles including half printed notes were also recovered. As a result of these activities, a feeling of doubt and insecurity was developed in the public mind in respect of genuine currency notes and country's economy was also prejudicially affected. District Magistrate apprehended that the bail might be granted to the petitioner by the Court and there was apprehension that the petitioner would again involve himself in the aforesaid criminal activities affecting public servies and economy of the Nation, hence it was thought necessary to preventively detain the petitioner.
We have heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Sri D.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1 2 Union of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to one submission that the representation of the petitioner dated 6.3.2009 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 22.3.2009, to the State Government after obtaining the comments from the D.I.G. Police, Bareilly. It was submitted that the State Government received the representation on 23.3.2009 and even rejected the same on 25.3.2009. This shows that the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner with utter promptness.
In the counter affidavit 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 30.3.2009. The representation of detenue was processed on 9.4.2009 at the levels of under Secretary, Consultant and Joint Secretary and was placed before the Union Home Secretary who considered the case of the detenue on 16.4.2009 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The decision of the Central Government was sent by a wireless message dated 17.4.2009 to Government of U.P and Superintendent District Jail, Bareilly, U.P informing that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 16.4.2009.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that there was no delay in processing the representation of the petitioner.
The representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 30.3.2009 and after processing, was put up before Home Secretary on 15.4.2009. No satisfactory explanation for this delay of 15 days has been furnished by the respondent no.4. Counter affidavit filed by Union of India reveals that despite representation of the petitioner having been received on 30.3.2009, nothing was done till 9.4.2009. The processing of the representation started on 9.4.2009. There is no explanation on record to explain the delay from 30.3.2009 to 9.4.2009.
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 15 days in disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government has not been adequately and reasonably explained by the Central Government. We are conscious of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are of a very serious nature but when it is decided to preventively detain a person by depriving him of his right of personal freedom, the due process of law has to be observed. The manner in which the representation of the petitioner remained pending before the Central Government cannot be justified. 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. 27.1.2010 Gaurav