9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution to challenge his detention. 2. Mr. Chibber argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State of West Bengal was represented by Mr. Chatterjee. After hearing the learned Counsel on May 24, 1972 I ordered that, for reasons to be given later, the petitioner be set at liberty. I now proceed to set out those reasons. 3. The order for the detention of the petitioner, as mentioned earlier, was made by the District Magistrate on February 10, 1971. The petitioner, it is stated, was found to be absconding after the making of that order and he was arrested on September 24, 1971. He was then served with the order of detention along with the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in the affidavit which was initially filed in opposition to the petition on behalf of the State Government, this Court adjourned the matter on May 5, 1972 to enable the State Government to file an additional affidavit. When the case was taken up thereafter on May 24, 1972 Mr. Chatterjee learned Counsel for the State, stated that no additional affidavit was to be filed on behalf of the State. It would thus follow that the delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner has remained unexplained. This unexplained delay, in my opinion, is sufficient to invalidate the detention of the petitioner. 5. According to Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, when any person is detained in purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be detained without recourse to a regular trial in a court of law. The authority concerned has, therefore, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and any deviation from compliance with legal requirement cannot be countenanced. It has accordingly been laid down in a string of authorities that undue or unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu against the detention order would introduce a serious infirmity in the detention. 6. In the case of Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal Constitution Bench of this Court laid stress on the imperative necessity of the consideration of the representation made by a detenu by the Government as early as possible. It was observed : It is established beyond any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 corresponding dual right in favour of a detenu, namely, (1) to have his representation independently considered by the Government, and (2) to have that representation, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, considered by an Advisory Board. It was observed that the said provision enjoined upon the detaining authority to afford to the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation. This fact, in the opinion of the Court, necessarily implied that such a representation must, when made, be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, for otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
