LexRAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D
,
F
G
H
' ..
v •.
· .. STATE OF.UTTAR PRADESH &AN~.
Oclober 7, 1983 ·
(V. B'r..:-KRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. M;sRA, JJ.)
' .
. ,, ..
•
Nationa{ Security Acf
7
- 19B~SeC. 3. (3)-Dete~tion. order-Delay"- in·
dealing with detenu':1 representaJion vitiates detention oTdei-Whether .there is
delay depends uponfa~·ts and circumstanc"e of each case-The'-re is no rigid rule
--<i;
or set formula.
~
·
. , ....
• National Security· Act,' 1980-Se'c.· -10-lnterpretaiion of-The _words
''p/ac; .- before the Advisory-__ Board'' means foTWard _to or sub'!!_it before _ the·
AdvisorY" Boar_d and nothing '!"ore~ - .·
ThC PetitioOer who was detained by an ord;r p
1
assed u~der sec. 3 (3) -of
'-the National SeCurity" Act, 1980 challeo8ed the validity of his detentio11 on the·
ground that there h~d · been inordinate de!ay -on the part of the· detaining
·authority. in forwardit1g the petitioner's representiltion to the State -Government. ·
· and that there had.bee.n ·viol<i."tioD. of the tnandatory provisions of sec. 10 of the·
Act which enjoinS the State GoverntrlCnt to take steps tO see that the case of
-: the detenu is c~nsidered by the AdviSory-~oard· within three week.S; ,fropl the·
date of detention.
n·i~sin~ _the .writ t:cti.tion:
, HELD : .The question ~~ether tqe representoition submittCd bJ a detenu
has been dealt with an ·reasonable promptness and. diligence is to . be decided
· not by the.application of any rigid ot inflexible iule" or set formula. nor by .a:
/
, merC arithmetiCal counting of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances of each case; if on su~texamination, it is found that there ·was
8.ny remissness, fndifferef!ce or av~idab!e delay on the part of the'. detaiD.ing ·
aUthority /State Government in dealing with the representation,' the Court will
undoubtedly treat it as a factor "itiating the co.ntintied detention of the detellu;
. oil the Other h_and, if the Court.is satisfied.that thC delay was· occaSien("d• not
by any lack of diUgence or promptness of attentioD ·on the part of the authority _
concerned. but due lo unavoidable circumstance or reasons· entirely- beyond :
. his control, such delay will not be treated as furnishing a ground for the· erant
of relief to the detenu against bis continued deten~ion. [344 C-F]
.. )'
_ · ibe. instant case- faUs· under the latter category inasmuch as . the ·court
is. satisfied on its· perus3.t of ihe original file pertaining to -c this rca;e maintained
, m- the office of the District Magistrate ·and: the averments' ~ontained in ihe
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that -the petiti"oner's- repre..- _ -: ·
, scntation has bee~ ~ealt with all the promptness that_ was reasonably possible
+
ll.A1siloo1N v. u.P. STATE (V.B. Bradt, J.)
341
under the circumstances then obtaining and that there was no avoidable delay_
on the part of the District Magistrate in forwarding
the
pet.itioner•s
representation. [344 B; G]
Under.sec. 10 of the Act a duty"is cast on the ~ppropriate G0vefnmerlt
to ''place before'; the Advisory Board constituted under sec. 9 within three
weeks-from the date of detention the grounds on which the order of detention
has been made and the representation,-if anY., made.by the Pt!rson affected _by
.the order. It is wq.olly wrong to interpret the words "place before" as meaning
anything n1ore than •forward-to' or ·submit before' the Advisory JJoard the
relevant papCrs relating to the detention of the detenu. It is eiltirely for the
Advisory Board to regulate. its Schedule of holding meetings and conducting its
business in accordance with the procedure laid down under sec. 11 of the Act
· which has specified a time limit of seten weeks fro~ the date of detention for
the submission· of the Board's report to the appropriate Government.
.
[345 G-H; 346 A-B] .
In the present case the Advisory Board had disp9sed of the petitioner's
c·ase well within the period of seven weeks specified· in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 1 J,
of the Act. [346 C]
'
'
•
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ· Petition
1983 ..
(Criminal)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
No. 37 of
Mrs. M. Qamaruddin and Rizwan A. Hafiezfonhe Petitioner.
O.•P. Malhotra, and D. Bhand.,ri for the Respondents.
.
.
TP,e Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. Taking into consideration the fact that
, this is .a petition for a writ of
Habeas Corpus filed under
Article 32 the ConstitutioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.