9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the respondent-state and the affidavit of Shri Dipak Kumar Rudra, District Magistrate, who passed the detention order, was filed in opposition to the petition. Mr. Vohra argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State was represented by Mr. Ghosh. After hearing the learned Counsel, we passed an order on May 3, 1972 for the release of the petitioner and stated that the reasons in support of our order would be indicated later. We now proceed to set out those reasons. 3. The order for the detention of the petitioner was made by the District Magistrate on February 19, 1971. The petitioner, it is stated, was found to be absconding and was arrested on July 15, 1971. The order of detention as well as the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petition. He thereafter filed a written application setting forth the additional grounds. Looking to the facts of the case, we allowed Mr. Vohra to take the additional grounds. 5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that his representation was received by the State Government on August 11, 1971. The State Government considered the representation and rejected it on September 8, 1971. There thus elapsed a period of 28 days between the receipt of the petitioner's representation and the consideration and rejection of the same by the State Govt learned Counsel for the respondent, who had the Govt. file relating to the detention of the petitioner, could not furnish any explanation as to why the Govt. took a long period of 28 days t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as expeditiously as possible. 7. The detenu in that case made a representation to the State Government on June 23, 1969 and the same was rejected by the said Government on August 9, 1969 It was held that the Government was guilty of infraction of Constitutional provision because of the inordinate delay in considering the representation. The petitioner was accordingly set at liberty. 8. Reliance in the case of Jayanarayan v. State of West Bengal (Supra) was placed upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Khairul Hasue v. State of West Bengal W.P. No. 246 of 1969 decided on September 10, 1969. In that case this Court held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution envisaged a dual obligation of the Government and a correspond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etenu's representation would invalidate the detention. In the present case, as stated earlier, the delay of 28 days in considering and rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not been explained. The said delay would consequently vitiate the detention of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Ghosh has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Roy alias Katu v. State of West Bengal W.P. No. 52 of 1972 decided on May 3, 1972. The representation of the detenu in that case was received by the State Government on October 7, 1971 and after consideration was rejected by the said Government on November 17, 1971. The fact that a period of one month and ten days elapsed between the receipt of the detenu's representation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
