2000 (9) TMI 1088 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of co-accused's revocation order.
2. Non-placement of bail applications before the detaining authority.
3. Delay in disposal of the petitioners' representation.
4. Distinction between public order and law and order.
5. Time lapse between the incident and the detention order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of co-accused's revocation order:
The petitioners contended that the detention order was vitiated because the revocation order of co-accused Arun Kumar Jain, who was detained under the same incident, was not placed before the detaining authority. The court found this argument compelling, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra*, which held that failure to place relevant and important material before the detaining authority vitiates the order of detention. The court noted that the revocation order was within the knowledge of the District Magistrate but was not considered, thus depriving the detaining authority of an opportunity to apply its mind to a relevant piece of evidence.

2. Non-placement of bail applications before the detaining authority:
The petitioners argued that their bail applications, as well as those of co-accused Arun Kumar Jain, were not placed before the detaining authority. The court did not find it necessary to delve deeply into this issue, given the resolution of the first issue. However, it was noted that the detaining authority's lack of access to these documents could have affected its decision.

3. Delay in disposal of the petitioners' representation:
The petitioners made a representation on 3-1-2000, which was received by the State Government on 5-1-2000 but was only decided on 13-1-2000. The court found that there was unexplained delay from 4-1-2000 to 6-1-2000 and from 11-1-2000 to 12-1-2000. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Rajammal v. State of T.N.*, the court held that any unexplained delay in considering the representation adversely affects the continued detention of the prisoner.

4. Distinction between public order and law and order:
The petitioners argued that the incident affected law and order, not public order, and thus did not justify detention under the National Security Act. The court stated that it is the impact of the act on society that determines whether it affects public order. The court found that the incident created a sense of insecurity among industrialists and the general public, thus affecting public order.

5. Time lapse between the incident and the detention order:
The petitioners contended that the detention order, passed on 17-12-1999 for an incident that occurred on 11-7-1999, lacked a live link and rational nexus. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the resolution of the first and third issues was sufficient to vitiate the detention order.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Habeas Corpus writ petitions, finding that the non-consideration of the co-accused's revocation order and the unexplained delay in disposing of the petitioners' representation rendered the continued detention illegal. The respondents were directed to set the petitioners at liberty forthwith unless their detention was required in any other case.