Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for setting-aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner Yogendra Singh Dohare @ Bhatiya under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act dated 14.1.2009 by District Magistrate, Auraiya.
The detention order was passed on the grounds that on 24.12.2008 at 6.20 A.M. the petitioner and his companions, pretending to be C.I.D. Officers, knocked the door of Manoj Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, broke open the door, beat Sri Gupta severely and abducted him. Later Sri Gupta was left at the police station by companions of the petitioner. Sri Gupta was taken to hospital but was declared dead. The petitioner was the district Chairman of a political party and used to interfere in the official working of the deceased. As a result of this incident, public anger was raised and public order was totally disturbed. 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 order, hence it was thought necessary to preventively detain the petitioner.
We have heard Sri Anupam Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Union of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to one submission that the representation of the petitioner dated 28.1.2009 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 2.2.2009, to the State Government after obtaining the comments from the S.S.P. Auraiya. It was submitted that the State Government received the representation on 4.2.2009 and even rejected the same on 10.2.2009. 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 9.2.2009. The representation of detenue was processed at the levels of under Secretary, Consultant and Joint Secretary who placed the same before the Union Home Secretary on 19.2.2009. The Home Secretary considered the case of the detenue on 6.3.2009 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The decision of the Central Government was sent by a wireless message dated 9.3.2009 to Government of U.P and Superintendent District Jail, Etawah, U.P informing that the representation of the detenue Yogendra Singh Dohare @ Bhatiya was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 6.3.2009. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 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 the Union Home Secretary was preoccupied with other pressing security related matters and this caused some delay in processing and deciding the representation.
The representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 9.2.2009 and after processing, was put up before Home Secretary on 19.2.2009 but Union Home Secretary took 15 days to consider the representations. No satisfactory explanation for this delay of 15 days has been furnished by the respondent no.4. The grounds that during the relevant period, a large number of representations were received from the State of U.P and Home Secretary was busy in other work cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for not taking action for a period of 15 days.
Thus it took 25 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 25 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. It is, however, pointed out that period of detention of the petitioner is going to expire after two days. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010 KU