9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 was received by State Government on 06.09.2016. Further requirement of Section 12 of the Act of 2006 according to which the Advisory Board has to submit its report within 50 days from the date of detention of the detenu was also complied with - It is, thus clear that not only matter of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board within requisite period of three weeks, but report was also submitted by the Advisory Board to the State Government much before expiry of 50 days from the date of detention of the petitioner. Argument of learned counsel the petitioner in this behalf is rejected. Whether consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Advisory Board was vitiated by reason of rejection of representation by the State Government rather than forwarding the same with its comments to the Advisory Board? - HELD THAT:- Section 3(3) of the Act of 2006 inter alia provides that when any order is made under this section by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment vide order dated 09.08.2016 approved the order dated 01.08.2016. It was thereafter that the Joint Secretary to Government Home (DM) Department forwarded the matter to the Chairman of the Advisory Board vide its letter dated 10.08.2016. Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Advisory Board vide letter dated 12.08.2016 communicated to the Joint Secretary to Government, Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.IX) Deptt., Government Secretariat, Jaipur that meeting of the Advisory Board has been scheduled to be held at 4.30 P.M. on 22.08.2016 in the Common Room of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur. The Joint Secretary, accordingly, informed the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur(East) and Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur about the date and time of the proposed meeting of the Advisory Board. It appears that subsequently a letter was sent by Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Advisory Board to Joint Secretary to the Government with reference to their letter dated 17.08.2016, wherein request was made for deferring the meeting of the Advisory Board scheduled on 22.08.2016 in view of the elections of Students Union of University of Raja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional. The order is non-speaking because the authorities have failed to apply their mind to the material on record inasmuch as they failed to consider facts and law in their true perspective. Mere fact that the petitioner has got 19 criminal cases registered against him could not be a reason to presume that the petitioner has become menace to the society or that he is acting in a manner, which is prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Most of the alleged offences are of petty nature, being under Sections 323, 336, 341, 337, 279, 379, 427, 325, 327 IPC, except few cases, which are under Section 365, 392 and 307 IPC in one of which (Case No. 519/2015), he has been acquitted. Two cases have been registered against the petitioner under Sections 4/25 Arms Act. In fact, out of 19 cases, 8 cases pertain to bailable offences. Besides, the petitioner has been acquitted in 8 cases and he has been extended benefit of probation in one case, in which he has been convicted for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Remaining cases are pending trial. Learned counsel argued that proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. initiated against the petitioner vide complaints dated 27.06.2013, 16.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt this fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. It is argued that the respondents failed to communicate to the petitioner approval of the initial detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006 dated 01.08.2016. Section 11 of the Act mandates that if any representation is filed by the detenu the same should also be forwarded to the Advisory Board. Learned counsel argued that though the petitioner made representation on 22.08.2016 to the competent authority of the State Government and Advisory Board, but since the State Government had already forwarded the matter of the petitioner to the Advisory Board vide communication dated 10.08.2016, the State Government has committed serious illegality in not forwarding representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board and wrongly rejected the same on its own vide order dated 26.08.2016. Action of the respondents has caused prejudice to the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Rajasthan vide letter dated 10.08.2016 wrote a letter to the Advisory Board within three weeks of passing order of detention as per provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 2006. Said letter was was received in the office of Advisory Board on 10.08.2016 itself. The Advisory Board proposed to convene its meeting on 22.08.2016 vide letter dated 12.08.2016 sent to the respondents. Since there were elections to Students Union of University of Rajasthan and Other Affiliated Colleges and representation was submitted by brother of the petitioner, therefore, next date was fixed as 29.08.2016 and communication thereabout was sent by the Private Secretary to the Chairman of Advisory Board vide letter dated 17.08.2016. It was thereafter that the meeting was convened by the Advisory Board on 29.08.2016 and report of Advisory Board was received by the respondents on 06.09.2016 within 50 days as per the requirement of Section 12 of the Act of 2006. It is, therefore, prayed that habeas corpus petition be dismissed. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also original record produced by the respondents for consideration before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy which can regulate its schedule of holding meetings and conducting its business in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act, which has specified a time limit of seven weeks from the date of detention for the submission of the Board's report to the appropriate Government. In view of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi(supra), what is required of the State Government is to forward grounds of detention of the detenu to the Advisory Board within three weeks. In the present case, order of detention of the petitioner was passed under Section 3(3) of the Act of 2006 on 01.08.2016 and the respondent-State forwarded grounds of detention of the petitioner along with relevant papers to the Advisory Board for consideration vide letter dated 10.08.2016, which was received by the Advisory Board on 10.08.2016 itself. Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Advisory Board vide letter dated 12.08.2016 conveyed that meeting of the Advisory Board shall be held on 22.08.2016 at 4.30 P.M. in the Common Room of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur. Even though, the meeting was adjourned on the request of the Commissioner of Police, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s section by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. The order made by the authorised officer as referred to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2006 refers to an order of initial detention made by the District Magistrate, but if after making of such order and placing the matter before the Advisory Board for its consideration, any representation is made by the detenu to the government authority/government and the matter is pending before the Advisory Board, the Government should necessarily forward such representation to the Advisory Board rather than rejecting it. In Jayanarayan Sukul Vs. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 219, the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.1969 under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and was served with the grounds of detention. On 14.06.1969, the Governor sent the report to the Central Government under Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n referred to the Advisory Board. In such a case, so long as the representation is received within thirty days from the date of the detention, the State Government would be bound to forward it to the Advisory Board. In Frances Coralie Mullin Vs. W.G. Khambra and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 275, the Supreme Court observed that the detaining authority must provide the detenu a very early opportunity to make a representation; must consider the representation as soon as possible, preferably before the representation is forwarded to the Advisory Board; must forward the representation to the Board before the Board makes its report and must consider the representation entirely independent of the hearing by the Board or its report, expedition being essential at every stage. However, the time-imperative can never be absolute or obsessive and there has to be lee-way, depending upon the necessities of the case. It was further observed that no allowance can be made for lethargic indifference or needless procrastination, though allowance must surely be made for necessary consultation where legal intricacies and factual ramifications are involved. In K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader Vs. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient cause for detention, the Government after considering the representation could revoke the detention. The Board has to submit its report within eleven weeks from the date of detention. The Advisory Board may hear the detenu at his request. The Constitution of the Board shows that it consists of eminent persons who are Judges or person qualified to be Judges of The High Court. It is therefore, proper that the Government considers the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt of the report of the Board. If the representation is received by the government after the Advisory Board has made its report, there could then of course be no question of sending the representation to the Advisory Board. It will have to be dealt with and disposed of by the Government as early as possible." The Supreme Court in Golam Biswas Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 16 SCC 177 had the occasion to consider similar argument that the representation of the detenu was not forwarded to the Advisory Board and rejected during pendency of proceedings before the Advisory Board and analysed effect thereof. It was noted that admittedly, representation of the detenu dated 08.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
