Gauhati High Court
Shri Yumnam Anand Meitei Alias Bocha vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 5 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ2654
Author: T. Nandakumar Singh
Bench: T.N.K. Singh
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. By this writ petition, orders of thee District Magistrate, Tamenglong being No. Cri/NSA/02/2005 Tamenglong, the 16th September, 2005 by exercising the powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80 S(Pt) dated 31-5-2005 for detaining the present petitioner, Shri Yumnam Anand Meitei alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj, order of the State Govt. being No. 17(1)/943/2005-S Imphal the 26th September, 2005 for approving the said detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District dated 16-9-2005 and also the order of the Govt. of Manipur being No. 17(1)/943/2005 Imphal the 25th October, 2005 for confirming the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District dated 16-9-2005 and also for fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention had been put to challenge mainly on the grounds that there are inordinate delay in disposing the representation filed by the detenu against the detention order to the State Government as well as to the Centra] Government.
2. The Parliament in 31st Year of Republic had enacted the National Security Act, 1980 for detention of a person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, relations of India with the Foreign Powers, of the security of India and from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the States and also from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order. Clauses (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India dealt with the fundamental rights of the detenu under the preventive detention law. Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 reads as follows:
22(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless --
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under Sub-clause (a) and (b) of Clause (7).
22(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
3. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab observed that:
When Law ends. Tyranny begins, Legislation begins where Evils begins. The function of the Judiciary begins when the function of the Legislature ends. because the law is, when the Judges say it is since the power to interpret the law vests in the Judges.
4. Heard Mr. Dolen Phurailatpam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Md. Jalal Uddin, learned G. A. appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3.
5. By neglecting all the unnecessary details, the precise facts which give rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the detenu/petitioner, while he was at Manipur Central Jail, Imphal as stated above, was detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Tamenglong District dated 16-9-2005 which had been approved by the order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 26-9-2005 and confirmed by the order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 25-10-2005 fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention.
6. Petitioner/detenu filed a representation dated 12-10-2005 for revocation of the detention order to both the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North Block, New Delhi-110001 through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal who had forwarded the said representation under his letter being No. B-2/2/04-MGJ(24/05) dated 12-10-2005 to the Inspector General of Prisons, Manipur, Imphal, a copy of which is available at Annexure-N/7 to the present writ petition.
7. The detenu/petitioner is taking the plea that there is an inordinate delay in disposing the said representation dated 12-10-2005 by the State Govt. under the letter of the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur dated 21-10-2005 under which the detenu/petitioner had been informed that his request for revocation of the detention order cannot be acceded to as the representation is found to be devoid of merit. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents 1 and 2, no cogent and good reasons are mentioned as to how the State Government dealt with the said representation of the detenu/petitioner and also nothing is mentioned as to whether the State Government had dealt with the said representation of the detenu/petitioner with utmost promptitude. The relevant file of the State Government had been placed before this Court and we have also carefully perused the files. From the files, it appears that the representation dated 12-10-2005 to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur submitted by the detenu/writ petitioner which had been forwarded by the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal under his letter dated 12-10-2005 had been received by the Home Department, Govt. of Manipur which is the concerned Department only on 18-10-2005 under note No. 12 of the relevant file. Ad-mittedly. the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa and also the Manipur Central Jail. Imphal and the Manipur Secretariat. Home Department. Govt. of Manipur are located within the radius of about 5 Kms. but it is not known as to how 6 (six) days had been taken in reaching the said representation of the petitioner dated 12-10-2005 to the Home Department, Govt. of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat. Imphal.
8. The petitioner/detenu has also taken, the plea that the Central Govt./Union Govt. (respondent No. 3) took 71 days to dispose of the representation of the detenu/petitioner dated 12-10-2005 and communicate the decision of the Central Govt./Union Govt. to the petitioner/detenu and also the petitioner has taken the serious plea that the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Union Govt. has not given any reasonable explanation as to why para-wise comments to the representation of the petitioner/detenu dated 12-10-2005 were sought for from the State Govt. on 7-11-2005. 28-11-2005 and 16-12-2005. The explanation for delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu/petitioner from the side of the Central Govt. Union Govt. in their affidavit-in-opposition are that the representation dated 12-10-2005 made by the detenu/petitioner was received by the Central Govt. on 31-0-2005 and in the concerned section in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 3-11-2005. The State Govt. vide wireless message of the Union of India/Central Govt. dated 7-11-2005, 28-11-2005 and 16-12-2005 was requested to send the para-wise comments to the representation, The Govt. of Manipur had furnished the para-wise comments and that was received by the Central Government/Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs only on 14-12-2005 and in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 19-12-2005. On 20-12-2005, the Union Home Secretary (who has been delegated the power by the Union Home Minister to decide such cases) considered the case of the detenu/petitioner and rejected his representation on 20-12-2005. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Central Govt./Union of India had not mentioned anything in their affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit as to why or what are the reasons for calling the para-wise comments to the representation of the detenu/petitioner dated 12-10-2005 from the State Government even if they have all the informa-tion and materials about the detention of the petitioner/detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 inasmuch as the respondents 1 and 2 had in compliance with subsection (5) of Section 3 of the NSA reported all the relevant facts to the Central Govt./Union of India together with the grounds on which the order had been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State respondents have a bearing on the necessity for the orders. The respondent No. 3. Union of India also has not placed the relevant file(s) of the Central Govt./Union of India before this Court and the respondents 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition also did not mention anything as to how and why there is a delay in sending the representation of the detenu/petitioner dated 12-10-2005 to the Union of India/Central Govt. inasmuch as the State Govt. sent the representation dated 12-10-2005 to the Central Govt./Union of India only on 21-10-2005 vide their letter dated 21-10-2005.
9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in order to substantiate the grounds for assailing the detention order that there are unexplained delay in disposing the representation of the petitioner/detenu dated 12-10-2005 resulting in violation of the rights of the petitioner/detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which renders the continued detention order vitiated has pressed into service the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court.
1. K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India State of Karnataka :
2. Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf Commissioner of Police :
3. Aslarn Ahmed Zahir Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India :
4. Kundanbhai Bulabhai Shaikh v. Dist. Magistrate Ahmedabad etc. :
5. Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India :
6. Venmathi Selvam (Mrs.) v. State of T.N. (1998) 5 SCC 410:
7. Rajammal v. State of T.N. :
8. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India :
9. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi :
10. Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra :
11. State Govt. Houseless Harijans Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka (2001) 1 SCC 610 : AIR 2001 SC 437:
12. Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam 1984 Cri LJ 1558 (Five Judges):
13. W. P. (Cri.) No. 39 of 2005 between Amom Ningol Yumnam Ongabi Rajjita Devi v. District Magistrate, Iraphal West; and
14. W. P. (Cri) No. 31 of 2005 between Kshetrimayum Prakash Singh & Paka v. District Magistrate Imphal West reported in 2006 Cri LJ 4564 (Gau).
10. To the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents had referred to the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the following cases:
(1) Sri Ram Sukrya Mhatra v. D. Tyagi :
(2) Mahesh Basumatary v. State of Assam 2005 (1) Gau LT 264:
(3) Kantilal Hirji Singh v. State of T.N. .
11. The Apex Court in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India, State of Karnataka (supra) held that the representation relates to the liberty of the individuals, the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, Clause (5) of Article 22 casts a legal obligation on the Government to consider the representation as early as possible. It is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the rep-resentation and dispose of the same as ex-peditiously as possible. The words "as soon as may be." occurring in Clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with the sense of urgency without any unavoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no prescribed time limit either under the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with. The requirement, however, is that there should be no supine indifference, slackness or callousness attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a prejudice of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. The Apex Court again, reiterated in Rama Dhonda Borade (supra) that the detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Correspondingly there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and requesting for his release, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The Apex Court in Rajammal v. State of T.N. (supra), had discussed as to how the duration or range of delay in disposing the representation is fatal or not and held that the test is not the duration or range of delay but it is the explanation made by the concerned authority. Para 8 of SCC in Rajammal v. State of T.N. reads as follows:
8. The position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference, or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So, test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned.
12. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India (supra) observed that while discharging the constitutional obligation to enforce the fundamental rights of the people, more specially right to personal liberty, the Court would not be influenced by the nature of the activities of the detenu. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Court."
13. The corollary of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that:
1. There is no period prescribed either under the constitution or under the concerned detention law within which representation should be dealt with:
2. It is a constitutional mandate under Clause (5) of Article 22 commanding the concerned authority to whom detenu submitted his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible:
3. There should not be supine indifference, slackness or callousness, attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in disposal of the representation would be a prejudice of the constitu-tional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal:
4. It is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So, the test is not the duration or the range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned.
14. As discussed above, there is no period either under the Constitution or under the National Security Act, 1980 within which representation should be dealt with but the question is whether the delay in disposing the representation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand, had been explained reasonably and properly by the State Government and also by the Central Government and the State Government jointly in explaining the delay in disposing the representation of the petitioner dated 12-102005 to the Central Government. It is now well settled that it is not enough to say that delay was very short, but what is concerned with the Court is that how it is explained by the authority concerned.
15. In the present writ petition, the detenu/writ petitioner is not questioning the authority of the Central Govt./Union of India to call the para-wise comments to the representation of the petitioner dated 12-10-2005 from the State Govt. i.e. the respondents 1 and 2, but what the detenu/petitioner is agitating in the present writ petition is that the respondent No. 3/Union of India ought to have given the reasons and explanations for calling the parawise comments from the State Government to the representation of the petitioner/detenu inasmuch the petitioner/detenu is detained under the National Security Act, 1980 under which the State Govt., i.e. the respondents 1 and 2, had to furnish all the details about the detention of the petitioner/detenu in compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 to the Central Government and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their turn had duly complied with; the requirements under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 in the case of the present petitioner/detenu. It is retretted here that the respondent No. 3/Union of India neither produced the relevant file(s) nor gave any reasons for calling the parawise comments in their affidavit-in-opposition. For deciding this point, Sub-section (5) of Section 3 is relevant and therefore, it has been quoted hereunder:
Section 3(5). When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this Section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order.
16. "The question whether on the report from the State Govt. under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA 1980, the Central Govt. has the discretion coupled with duty to consider the question of revocation of detention order expeditlously, irrespective of the fact that there is no representation or/petition From the detenu to the Central Govt. for the purpose" had been referred to the Five Judges Bench 6f this Court in Civil Ref. No. 203 of 1983 from Civil Rule (H/C) 17 of 1993 between Hitendra Nath Goswamy v. State of Assam 1984 Cri LJ 1538 : The majority view of this Court in Hitendra Nath (supra)' is that since the Central Govt. Had all the relevant materials regarding the detention of a detenu under the NSA inasmuch as the Central Govt. had been informed all the particulars and materials about the detention of the detenu under the NSA in compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA by the State Govt. the Central Govt. has to take a decision as to whether the detention order is required to be revoked or not even without any representation from the detenu. Corollary of the decisions of the Five Judges of this Court in Hltendra Nath Goswamy (supra) is that "calling of para-wise comments from the State Govt. to the representation filed by the detenu or the filing of representation by the detenu is not the essential requirements for the Central Govt. for taking decisions as to whether the detention order under the NSA is to be revoked or not. The fact of the case is spelt out in para 2 which reads as follows:
2. In the case out of which the question above has arisen, the detenu, Sri Hitendra Nath Goswami, was detained by order dated 5-1-83 of the State Government passed, in pursuance of Section 3(2) of the Act. The State Government reported the fact of detention to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made, within 7 days of the order of detention, in compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. The detenu, Sri Hitendra Nath Goswami, made no representation to the Central Government (sic) received the report on 28-1-83, considered and found it prima facie valid. As a result, the order of detention has not been revoked by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 14(I)(b) of the Act. As such a question arose whether the discretion of the Central Government under Section 14(1) is coupled with duty to consider the report made by the State Government, in pursuance of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act with expedition, where no representation has been made by the detenu to the Central Government to exercise its power of revocation under Section 14 of the Act; and if not, its legal effect. In Joynath Sarma v. State of Assam (1983) 1 Gauhatl LR 289 : 1984 Cri LJ 92 a Division Bench held that where no decision has been taken either on the report or on the representation of the detenu by the Central Government, the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) has been violated, which renders the continued detention illegal, inasmuch as the Central Government has failed to discharge its duty enjoined under Section 14 of the Act. In Bikash Narayan Sarma v. State of Assam (1983) 1 Gauhati LR 431 : 1984 Cri LJ 81. a case which arose in another Bench of this Court, the Court found on the materials before it that the State Government sent its report to the Central Government, in compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, but the Central Government had not applied its mind to such a report. The Division Bench held the view that though it was open to the Central Government to revoke an order if it thought fit to do, a question of discretion coupled with duty mention of which has been made in Sabir Ahmed would arise only when petition/representation has been made. The Division Bench observed : "Indeed, Sabir Ahmed has used this expression in the context of dealing with the petition/representation; otherwise it would be a case of 'complete discretion' and not re-viewable by a Court of law.
and the findings is spelt out at para 33 which reads as follows:
33. I have discussed at. length the question under reference, and for reasons given above, my answer is that the discretionary power of the Central Government under Section 14(1) of the Act in the context of Section 3(5) of the Act is coupled with duty to consider the report received from the State Government with reasonable expedition, notwithstanding that no representation/petition has been made by the detenu to the Central Government; what is reasonable expedition depends on the circumstances of the particular case; and in case of breach of such procedural safeguard, the detention order is liable to be set aside and the detenu set at liberty.
17. This Court has to keep a balance between the requirements for detaining a detenu under the NSA by the competent authority on the one hand and right and liberty of the Citizen of India on the other. Neither party should have the impression that its case has been prejudiced by the order of this Court.
18. Executive, no less than the Judicial is under general duty to act fairly. Indeed fairness founded on the reasons is the requirement of rule of law and principle of natural justice. The Apex Court (C/B) in S. N. Mukherjee 1990 Cri LJ 2148 (supra) held that administrative action must be supported by reasons except in the cases where the requirements has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. The Apex Court (C/B) in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned. The Apex Court in, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant (2001) 1 SCC 182 : AIR 2001 SC 24 held that the object of the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. This Court in Kshetrimayam Maipak Devi v. State of Manipur 2001 (2) Gau LT 178 for deciding the point as to whether or not there is inordinate delay in disposing the representation has looked into the circumstances and reasons recorded in the relevant file of the concerned authority. In the present case in hand the respondent No. 3 has not placed the file of the Central Govt./Union of India for perusal of this Court to see what are the circumstances and reasons under which the para-wise comments of the State Govt. to the representation filed by the petitioner/detenu dated 12-10-2005 is required even if all the information about the detention of the petitioner/detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 had been furnished by the State Govt. to the Central Govt. in compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Over and above no reasons or nothing of the sort are mentioning in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents/respondent No. 3 as to why they need the para-wise comments. As discussed above, it is the immediate requirement of the doctrine of natural justice to record the reasons in their affidavit-in-opposition or to place the relevant file(s) of the respondent No. 3 to show to this Court about the requirement of the parawise comments of the State Govt. to the representation of the petitioner/detenu dated 12-10-2005. In Ram Sukrya 1994 Cri LJ 63 (supra) cited by the learned CGSC, the relevant record/file of the Central Government had been placed before the Court for deciding as to whether or not there was unavoidable delay in disposing the representation and on perusal of the file the Apex Court decided the case. Para 4 of the judgment in Ram Sukrya (supra) spells out the facts which reads as follows : 4. When the Special Leave1 Petition came up for consideration this Court directed the Central Government to keep the record available and that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself. Thus, now today, apart from the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the records of the Central Government are also made available by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Altaf Ahmad. We have perused the records as well." Decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sukrya (supra) reads in para 7 which reads follows : "7. This Court in Abdul Salam, alias Thiyyan v. Union of India to which one of us (K. Jayachandra Reddy) was a member elaborately considered the entire case law on the question of delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government and held that no hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time can be laid down and each case has to be considered from the facts presented therein and that if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts in that case, it does not warrant interference. The need to make a reference to all the decisions once over is thus obviated. We respectfully agree with the ratio therein."
19. In Mahesh Basumatary (supra) while deciding as to whether the explanation made by the Central Govt. regarding the delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu/petitioner are reasonable or not, this Court had perused the record in original, i.e. the relevant file of the Central Government, placed before this Court by the learned CGSC. The relevant extract of the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Basumatary (supra) reads as follows:
The facts noted by us amply demonstrate that the Central Government had taken the requisite steps from time to time to dispose of the petitioner's representation and when the para wise comments were received on 10-8-2004 decision was taken to reject the petitioner's representation on 6-8-200,4. In this regard we have perused the record in original placed before the Court by the learned Sr. CGSC which would substantiate necessary steps as claimed had been taken by the Central Govt. to obtain parawise comments from the State Govt. On the above facts we are satisfied that time taken by the Central Government in disposing of the petitioner/detenu's representation has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
20. In Kantilal Hirji Shah v. State of T.N. (2000) 7 SCC 605 : 2002 Cri LJ 261 the Apex Court dealt with the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA"). The Apex Court in a catena of cases such as:
(1) Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India :
(2) Amin Mohammad Qureshi v. Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay etc. had explained and distinguished between the National Security Act (for short 'NSA') and COFEPOSA. For the sake of repetition, the provisions of the NSA like the Sub-section (5) of Section 3 is not available in the COFEPOSA but under sub-seciion (2) of-Section 3 of the COFEPOSA only the requirements of the State Govt. is to submit a report in respect of the detention order. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA reads as follows:
Section 3(2). When any order of detention is made by a State Govt. or by an Officer empowered by a State Govt, the State Govt. shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order.
It is, no doubt, well settled that it is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should be read with as a whole then Chapter by Chapter, Section by Section and Word by Word. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity or inconsistency therein and not otherwise and every effort should be made to effect to all the parts of the statute unless absolutely necessary no Part thereof shall be rendered superfluous or redundant and true meaning of a provision of law is to be determined On the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. Reference may be made to Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shanker Acharya . We are of the considered view that Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of NSA is distinctly different from Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA.
20A. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Apex Court in Kantilal Hirji Shah (supra) shall not help the case of the respondent No. 3 inasmuch as that case relates with the detention under the COFEPOSA and there is no provisions like Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA in the COFEPOSA and also the Apex Court had only decided the authority who can call para-wise comments but not the requirement of reasons for calling the parawise comments to the representation filed by the detenu. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the respondent No. 3 failed to give sufficient reasons/explanations for the long delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu/petitioner dated 12-10-2005 because of calling parawise comments from the State Government to the representation of the detenu/petitioner.
21. In view of the above discussions, we are of the firm view that there are supine indifference, slackness and callousness attitude in considering the representation of the petitioner/detenu by the respondents and delay in disposing of the representation are not explained, as a result thereof, there is a breach of the constitutional imperative rendering the continued detention of the petitioner/detenu is impermissible and illegal. Accordingly detention orders are hereby quashed and the detenu/petitioner be set at liberty unless/wanted in other cases. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.